From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Mar 1 02:06:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:06:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet theology Message-ID: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com> Or exegesis? ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Date: 01/03/2013 05:57 (GMT+01:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Internet theology Ian, hermeneutics. Alejandro Pisanty   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico   +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 22:29 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Internet theology I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth reading.     http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble   Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation.   I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF.   Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up relationships with a sponsoring UN agency).     Ian Peter           -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Mar 1 02:19:53 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:19:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Internet theology Message-ID: All of the above i think "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >Or exegesis? > > > > >------------ >C. A. Afonso > >-------- Original message -------- >From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" >Date: 01/03/2013 05:57 (GMT+01:00) >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter >Subject: RE: [governance] Internet theology > >Ian, > >hermeneutics. > >Alejandro Pisanty > >  > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >Facultad de Química UNAM >Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >  > >+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > >+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > >Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Enviado el: jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 22:29 >Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Asunto: [governance] Internet theology > >I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth reading. >  >  >http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble >  >Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation. >  >I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF. >  >Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up relationships with a sponsoring UN agency). >  >  >Ian Peter >  >  >  >  >  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Mar 1 02:30:41 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:30:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10 In-Reply-To: <213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com> References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> <213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Grace for sharing. It's great input particularly to those who did not attend but were following remotely. Indeed, enabling remote participation is welcomed. Regards -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 02:34:39 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:34:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet theology In-Reply-To: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com> References: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com> Message-ID: <05d401ce164f$44dc0360$ce940a20$@gmail.com> casuistry? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 8:06 AM To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Internet theology Or exegesis? ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Date: 01/03/2013 05:57 (GMT+01:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Internet theology Ian, hermeneutics. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 22:29 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Internet theology I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth reading. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation. I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF. Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up relationships with a sponsoring UN agency). Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracey at traceynaughton.com Fri Mar 1 03:16:21 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:16:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10 In-Reply-To: References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Grace, wonderful! Best to you, Tracey On 01/03/2013, at 7:31 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Good people Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing faith in me. Opening Remarks Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10. The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out: · Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in global reach. · At the same time most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.) · Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. · Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating adoption and use of internet. · Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues. · Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in general. · Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. · A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community. However: The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data protection online. Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls for an understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it carries, and the controls that apply to such content. As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and therefore needs to be preserved. There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail. Conclusion The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right to information. As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense. We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address issues raised by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rights values, and be negotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed and participatory manner by its users. I thank you for your attention. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From skiden at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 03:45:27 2013 From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:45:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10 In-Reply-To: References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Grace, Thank you. Great job and I can identify with you! Sarah On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Good people > Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the > opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and > bestbits. > > Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, > Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing > faith in me. > > *Opening Remarks* > > *Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants* > > * > * > > As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote > participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and > active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting > that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely > interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in > the WSIS +10.**** > > > The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out: > **** > > · Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute > figures, in percentage per country, in global reach. **** > > · At the same time most people in the world still can't access > the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics, > disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited > bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)**** > > · Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are > susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing > infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion > and scarce resources. **** > > · Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which > are also facilitating adoption and use of internet. **** > > · Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive > consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information.There is much > wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues. ** > ** > > · Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the > Internet and on our lives in general.**** > > · Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which > people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind > is free. **** > > · A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and > shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human > Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its > mark in the wider IG community.**** > > * > * > > *However:* > > > > The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and > promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data > protection online. **** > > > > Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls > for an understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is > shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it > carries, and the controls that apply to such content.**** > > > > As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can > attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS > doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and > therefore needs to be preserved.**** > > > > There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge > divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.** > ** > > ** ** > > *Conclusion* > > The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental > right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to > information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is > secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these > rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the > right to information.**** > > ** ** > > As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a > reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but > that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where > to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.**** > > ** ** > > We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and > must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. **** > > ** ** > > Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address issues rai > sed by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rightsvalues,andbe > negotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. **** > > > > A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be > a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed and > participatory manner by its users. **** > > ** ** > > I thank you for your attention.**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 04:14:14 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:14:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] The 1st Arab IGF Chairman Report Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I am forwarding to the governance list the Chairman Report for the 1st Arab IGF held in Kuwait last October 2012 and hosted by Kuwait Information Technology Society. I hope the report will give a background on the Arab IGF as a process and as an event. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AIGF_RPRT_LQ.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2275436 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Fri Mar 1 04:25:56 2013 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (graciela at nupef.org.br) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:25:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: <1ACAA97645B64AB6A8242DA29B18BD4A@Toshiba> References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net> <1ACAA97645B64AB6A8242DA29B18BD4A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2478bb992993703061319df66c56a834@nupef.org.br> I totally agree. Congratulations, Anita - and thanks! best, Graciela Em 28-02-2013 20:43, Ian Peter escreveu: > Great speech by Anita. Glad someone actually said something for a change! > > FROM: parminder [1] > SENT: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:02 PM > TO: governance at lists.igcaucus.org [2] > SUBJECT: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech > > pl find enclosed, and also below, the speech delivered by my colleague Anita Gurumurthy as a closing ceremony civil society speaker. > > parminder > > STATEMENT BY ANITA GURUMURTHY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IT FOR CHANGE > > AT THE CLOSING CEREMONY OF WSIS PLUS 10 REVIEW > > HELD BY UNESCO FROM 25TH TO 27TH FEBRUARY, 2013 > > Dear fellow-citizens of the world; > > On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the World Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of the digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing long standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders were also concerned that the digital divide at international and national levels could lead to shaping a new class of those who have access to ICTs and those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of the WSIS plus 10 review, we have the responsibility to go back to this concern. The Internet - as the future social paradigm - is already yet another axis shaping exclusion and power. > > The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers. It notes - with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all. > > This is the moment of reckoning - for all of us - to ask if we stand at the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global and national governance and policy architectures of the new techno-social paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the good life that seemed plausible in 2003. > > * > > The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is a serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal growth and its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to the inequality in work - wages, working conditions and social cohesion - and its microeconomic implications. > * > > Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN says that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a large labour informality affecting mainly the young and women. Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Guatemala have all seen an increase in inequality in the past decade. > * > > The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity - the consuming middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the livelihoods crisis for the majority. > > All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This is the principal question that the WSIS review process must answer. > > If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in the past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the power of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave new hope to social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in mainstream spaces have more or less seen the political elite make way for a new class of economic elite - information society democracy remains as exclusionary as its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little place for women and others in the margins, and oblivious of new forms of violence and misogyny in the open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors of the virtual world. > > Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society have to come to terms with and interrogate the roots of these crises - the unfavourable conditions that seem to have jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet. > > The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold - it is economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has - at an unstoppable speed - usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament in real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of colossal corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010..." > > Centralization is the name of the game - the most powerful weapon in neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data, today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars combine to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market place atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in a logic that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling to see the realpolitik. > > The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would precipitate a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens its horizons, we see the individuals, communities and nations, fragmented by increasing self interest. The seamless geographies of the connected world are images of the Internet's economic paradigm - where membership for marginalised individuals, social groups and nations is a simple binary - assimilation or decimation. The talk of diversity and multiligualism notwithstanding, there is much less we can aspire today out of the promise of the networks society for collaboration and horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We need to pause and ask - are our normative frameworks - infoethics and info-civic imaginaries - adequate to ensure that every person, the last woman, can be a global citizen in the interconnected global world. > > What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states that make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of freedoms and the rule of law > > The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 , Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development, Beijing in 1996 for women - pursued problems confronting humanity with the resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed to the broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. There are some lessons here for civil society in the information society space. > > Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant of the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review (Post 2015 Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These overlapping inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals of the WSIS declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review that can offer analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews. > > The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review the state of democracy - and I qualify, the state of global democracy. Here - we have two tasks > > * > > Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other UN reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and climate change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity, and violence against women. > > * > > The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can make the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy issues pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and national. Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet should be a principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process. > > We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been greater in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the brazen pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For civil society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the network age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the core issues that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS plus 10 review process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in multistakeholderism be reduced to shadowboxing - where emerging hierarchies are denied and those that wield power escape with no accountability. > > Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy - engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here. > > [3]1Www.ITforChange.net [4] > > ------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Links: ------ [1] mailto:parminder at itforchange.net [2] mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org [3] http://email.tiwa.net.br/#sdfootnote1anc [4] http://Www.ITforChange.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 iza at anr.org Fri Mar 1 05:10:43 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:10:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet theology In-Reply-To: <05d401ce164f$44dc0360$ce940a20$@gmail.com> References: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com> <05d401ce164f$44dc0360$ce940a20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Ian for reminding the important point Kieren (and others) have. I read them through this morning, before breakfast, and some points are well taken, while I disagree with others. I agree that we should discuss based on the facts first, and I made that point yesterday, in terms of distribution of participation, etc. I also agree that so far feedback system have not been sufficient. And I also agree we should be really sensitive to the outside world, say. However, I disagree with the over-simplification of counting the number of workshops and number of participants. The stats themselves are inconsistent, some years they counted the number of participants from host country, that would result very different interpretations. While some years North and South America are separately counted, but some years WEOG was used to combine West Europe and North America, and put GRULAC, instead of South America. I also disagree that MAG as a whole are not caring these points and controlled by a few. In the same context, it is an open consultation, Day 1, but today's meeting, MAG meeting which were closed meeting 2-year ago, are now actually very open and there is almost no distinction between MAG members and non-MAG members in this room, in restricted manner. I mean it is our collective challenge to make IGF better and effective. Blaming only a few, making kind of conspiracy theory and putting to the web is, honestly very journalistic, but not so constructive IMHO. izumi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **** > ------------------------------ > > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter [ > ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 22:29 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Asunto:* [governance] Internet theology**** > > I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and > was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has > provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth > reading. > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble > > Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of > materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the > thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be > attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and > post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also > includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, > and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation. > > I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel > gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF. > > Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have > become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology > and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up > relationships with a sponsoring UN agency). > > Ian Pete*r* > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Mar 1 06:46:00 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:46:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations In-Reply-To: <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org> References: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org> <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <513094F8.8010004@cis-india.org> Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 17:45]: > Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 13:06]: >> >> Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open >> Consultations. > > The full transcript of Day 1 of the IGF Open Consultations. Pre-lunch transcript from Day 2 of the IGF Open Consultations. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- ***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com** ***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com***. [ this is a test of the scribing ] ***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.Quicktext.Com***. >>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Shall we start the mag meeting? Thank you very much. I want to hand over the floor to the honorary chair to start the meeting. Thank you. >>ashwin sasoneko: distinguished guests, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning to all of you. This is the -- as we discussed yesterday, this is the mag meeting for discussing the next igf meeting in bali. I understand that to this agenda we will see the preparation -- presentation for the next igf meeting from any -- from the logistic sites, so i hope during the presentation we can also discuss the logistics sites, what we discussed yesterday, and perhaps some plus and minuses from the previous igfs so we can have a better igf meetings from the logistics side. And of course after that, we will discuss the agenda to discuss the substance of the igf, and after three days of wsis and yesterday open consultations, hopefully we can have a better substance to be discussed as well as organizing the discussion of the substance better. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, i hope we can start as soon as possible and we have to conclude also at the end of the meeting to conclude also what we have before then we have the next mag meeting in geneva, hopefully, to finalize everything. So i would like to pass the discussion to the chair of the discussions, mr. Markus kummer. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Maybe let's start with a couple of housekeeping issues. Today we don't have interpretation, and people have asked whether we could maybe reduce the lunch hour to one hour and stop one hour earlier, as many people have planes to catch. So unless i see violent objection, then i would assume that we have an agreement that we work till 12:30, have one hour lunch break, and resume at half past 1:00 and we conclude at 4:30, so we have plenty of time to go to the airport. There is one issue which i mentioned briefly yesterday. That is the dates of the may consultation which in principle have been agreed on, but many mag members pointed out that hotels in geneva are -- hotel rooms are difficult to get by, and those who actually managed to get them, they can be very, very expensive, because there are other meetings there. Now, however some people have already made arrangements, so i wonder whether we can agree whether we -- either -- it's a binary choice. Either we keep the dates or we go for new dates and the new dates would have to be, i think, in june. Jocken from the european broadcasting union has said he would check availability of the rooms in the ebu, but i wonder could we have maybe a show of hands who would be violently opposed -- understandably i -- some people have already made arrangements and cancelling/changing arrangements is usually not cost-neutral and can also be an annoyance. Who would be violently opposed to changing the dates, just to have an idea? >> (speaker is off microphone.) >>chair kummer: well, we would have to look at -- do we have tentative dates for june? I think it would be back-to-back with the cstd or -- We have this discussion some months ago, i think, and because there's plenty of meetings in may, and some people said "no, this doesn't work because it's back-to-back with that and we cannot have that." yes, raul, please. >>raul echeberria: i have already my arrangements for attending the meeting in may. I have no problems for booking in the hotel. In fact, i know that some people have booked today without any problem. But -- so i'm open to change the date, but depending on the date. Yes. So it's -- if you have a concrete alternative, but tunis -- there are other commitments in june, so if it is the first week of june, it is okay, or the last week of may. If we delay the meeting one or two weeks, okay, more, i'm -- >>chair kummer: okay. And let's wait until (saying name) gets back to us with proposals of concrete dates and let's revisit that, hopefully before the end of the day we will have a decision. And thank you very much for that. Now, what is the -- that's also actually linked to when we have the date. It's basically what we ought to have at the end of the day is a clear time line of how to move forward. That is deadlines for submitting workshops and so on, deadlines -- Also, we have the igf village then presumably again we had the past. That sort of deadline ought to be fixed in relation to the meeting. They have to be well ahead of the next meeting. We don't need to agree on anything today. I think with ought to agree on the time line, but i think we had a very good discussion yesterday. Many interesting proposals were mentioned for main themes, overall themes of the meeting. There was a strong notion of themes that should be addressed by the meeting. I think science and technology for development was supported by several people. Human rights had strong support. Internet principles. Enhanced cooperation. Multistakeholder principles as well. And best-best practices. Also internet as engine for growth and advancement. All -- one proposal, i think it was mervi that had strong support from several delegations, enhancing multistakeholder collaboration for growth, development, and human rights. Internet cooperation was mentioned. Building bridges. And a lot of support for focus on cybersecurity, also for linking security and human rights. Support for dealing with young people, children. The point was made that should be a horizontal issue that should be brought into all sessions. Spam was mentioned by various -- many people as an important issue also, in light of the discussions in dubai in december. Internet exchange points. It has been with us in the igf, i think, since the very beginning. Public access was also mentioned. As i said, i don't think we need to agree on that, but i think it would be helpful if we convey that these are possible themes that have some strong support or that would guide those who are thinking of workshops, but of course a call for workshops should not preclude any other themes. Some workshop proponents may wish to address. And there was a lot of discussion, i think, on the format of the main session, a strong notion that past formats is maybe not the right way forward as people many found it, at current, stale. The three-hour slots could be shortened into two 90-minute slots, for instance, as three-hour panels are long panels. Clearly there was, i think, strong support for more interactive sessions and for maybe also experimenting with new formats. Roundtables were mentioned, like the roundtable we had last year, which brought together workshops on one given issue, and that proposal was made that maybe the last sessions could deal in a roundtable format with workshops that have been proposed -- had been held in the previous days. And there was a lot of support for being brave and experimenting with new formats like poster sessions, bird of feather sessions, while at the same time i think maintaining formats that governments find a little bit easier to engage in very strong support was for a better integration of regional igfs. That, i think, has been a common theme for the past few years but we haven't found yet the right format for doing so, and i think in terms of organizing the meeting, i think more or less everybody agreed that it is important to have a newcomer session to introduce newcomers to the igf, and i think also kind of a taking stock session at the end of the meeting. There was, i think, proposals were made for keeping open a session for really emerging issues. That is, issues that have emerged either during the igf itself or the weeks before, so that we have a slot where we can address burning issues, so to speak. And, yeah, that's, i think as far as the discussions on the main sessions. On the workshops, i think at the end of the discussion, there was agreement that we should keep the slots at 90 minutes, as -- yes, you need some time to get started and some time to clear up, and 90 minutes, to most, seemed to be the appropriate time. There was no agreement on the number of workshops. Some were in favor of making really strong -- taking a strong cap on the numbers, whereas others pointed out that it is workshops that bring in participants, as many people might find it difficult to have periods sign onto a travel requests if they don't get a speaking slot. But there was, i think, a strong sense that maybe the mag should have a tighter control with the selection of workshops, but not only at the front end, also at the back end. The feedback, quality of control of workshops that we have to find may be a formula that we really have a score sheet, how many people participate in the workshop, was it really interactive, were the panels indeed diverse, so that we have a little bit of an idea of how it went. In the past, we don't -- we haven't had that. Now, to integrate the workshops with the main session, i think there was considerable discussion on that, and i think also general agreement that in the past whatever we tried, it didn't really work that well, so the -- i think the roundtable idea of bringing people together who organized a similar workshop, that could indeed be the way to generate discussions. And yes, of course, we had also a discussion on implementing the cstd working group on improvements and i think there was a general agreement that the mag -- that we have to take this very seriously, and this would, in many ways, be a horizontal issue guiding our preparations for the bali meeting. This is my reading of yesterday's discussions. Before opening the floor, maybe we also need to agree on the rules of the game, on the rules of engagement, at today's meeting. We said it would be an open meeting, but i think, as far as i understand, the mag has developed last year a way to proceed that mag members are given precedence and then the nonmembers can come in at the end of an agenda item. Is that correct, chengetai? >> (speaker is off microphone.) >>chair kummer: okay. So that seems to be a correct interpretation of last year's rule of engagement, and i suggest keeping those. I think it's important to be open and inclusive, but at the same time the mag members have a clear responsibility and they should be given the preference -- precedence. I wonder, should we -- if the bali -- the indonesian presentation, would you be ready or should we start with that? >>ashwin sasoneko: yes. >>chair kummer: shall we start with that? Okay. Why don't we start with the show, please. >> good morning. First of all, thank you, chair, for giving us the opportunity to present our preparations as hosts of the eighth meeting for the igf, 2013, in bali, indonesia. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, in this opportunity, i am -- and my team would like to present the preparation process and the logistical aspects for the eighth meeting of the igf 2013 in bali, indonesia. First of all, i'd like also to extend my appreciation for the letter of confidence from the undesa for accepting indonesia as the hosts of the eighth igf meeting in bali, indonesia. There are three main sections in this presentation. First of all, is the process of the igf preparation which leads to the (indiscernible) internet governance forum of we call it idigf. The second thing is the information concerning the venue of the igf 2013, and then the third one is the welcoming address. First of all, reflect the multistakeholders principles, we will do the (indiscernible) multistakeholder principle in these presentations. It will be done by three speakers. The first one is i -- me, myself, (saying name) -- representative of the governments, mag members, and the second presenters will be represented by mr. Sammy (saying name) from the isp, india nearby you know internet service provider association. And uh third presentation is by the private sector." Ms. (saying name) from the id config. This is the structure of the indonesian internet governance forum known as idigf and (indiscernible) igf. As you can see, the structure of the idigf consists of government side, name ministry, and then also ministry of foreign affairs and national ict council, and then the business of private sector from indonesian internet service provider association and indonesian ict federation, (saying name) association, (saying name) association, et cetera. And then flip one from the civil society id config, and (indiscernible). Before we made a commitment to propose as a host of the eighth igf meeting 2013, we have made several public consultations process as an implementation of the multistakeholderism principles. The public consultations were starting in 2010 with discussions with stakeholders. In early 2011, freedom house came to indonesia to share experience in internet governance forums when we meet the transition of the igf book authored by mr. Jovan kobe a luigi a, to indonesian language in 2011 (indiscernible) stakeholders. After that, many discussions had been made including in november 2012 when we declare the establishment of indonesian internet governance forum, also known as idigf. In the follow-up to that, a series of meetings to propose igf 2013, the preparation include the (indiscernible) from undesa, mr. Slav slava and igf secretariat, mr. Chengetai, on january 30 to february 4th, 2013, and mr. Slava and mr. Chengetai had met with our preparation team. Officials from minister -- ministry of ict, minister of foreign affairs, national ict council police department, in gentleman character a and also in bali. And after that, we have just received the concurrent letter from the usg director-general undesa stated that based on our offer and the assessment (indiscernible) report, the undesa has accepted our offer as the host of the eighth meeting of igf in 2013. The venue of the igf 2013 meeting is in bali, indonesia, and the tentative schedule for the igf 2013 is 21st to 25th of november 2013, where on the 21st -- that is a monday -- we prepare for preparation process for 30 sessions and also plus another side event, high-level meeting, and the 22nd to 25th is the real igf meeting. And because of the (indiscernible) 24th is the u.N. Day, so we try to use that day to become the (indiscernible). And the next presenter of information of the venue, i'd like to give the floor to mr. Sammy (saying name), please. >> thank you, mr. (saying name). Thank you, mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Before i am starting my presentation about the venue, i'd like to express my gratitude specifically for mr. Robert guerra, who has been helping us on the capacity-building in 2011, how to open-dialogue on the multistakeholder. This has really, really helped us. And this will help understanding the multistakeholder outlook, how to conduct a -- open dialogue on the multistakeholder. And also, i'd like to express my gratitude to mr. Jovan carb a luigi a (indiscernible) translate the book. This book extremely help us in understanding what is the internet governance forum -- internet governance itself. Okay now i'm starting with my presentation on the venue. So the venue will be taking place in nusa-dua. Surrounding the venue, as we see, there is 42 hotels started from the 5-star hotel to the 2-star hotel, and then the other end of the venue from the hotel is from the walking distance to 15 minutes by taxi. Next? So this is the -- the venue we located. We have 20 more rooms that can be capable of whatever agenda that we are going to decide on this mag meeting, and you can see we also can -- yesterday we discussed what -- how the format (indiscernible) with the roundtable discussion, we can also form the venue into the roundtable discussion. Next. This is the facility, and then we also on the facility, we have a very large corridor that can be used for the booth -- for the -- from the organizations that we will use. Next. This is the form -- the layout of the venue. Can -- if you all can see that we have -- the venue is very close by, so the movement from one classroom to other classroom will be very easy. Next. And then this is the -- so from the big one for the plenary and then we -- and then the -- and the five other large rooms for the bigger class. Next. This is also -- this is the smallest class. Next. This is another -- medium classes that can be used also. Beside the total classes that the venue has, they also have many rooms for the office that can also be used for the undesa and all of the igf delegation. Next. This is the -- how we can set the room. Next. So this facility function will be meeting rooms and the 50 vip rooms and we also have vip rooms if some of the -- maybe the president or the secretary of the united nations will come, we also can handle that. Next. Next, the presentation is -- will be done by civil society through the video, so i'd like you to enjoy this. [ video starts >> the discussion of the internet governance forum started in 2010. I.D. Igf was in november 2012. It was based on the stakeholders that was the government, the citizen id, the private sectors, that the internet is not just technical matters but also to talk about matter like law, security, human rightses, freedom of expression (indiscernible). It also requires active participation from all the stakeholders. With (indiscernible) as our background, we are, therefore, uniting a truly multistakeholder forum in hosting the igf 2013. The initiative is also intended to showcase the good practices that has been happening in emerging countries. The new model for hosting the global igf also requires a new approach of the event. Therefore, the idigf members are looking for assistance, support from the later government, an international organization, private sectors to support the igf 2013. We welcome your support and we also welcome you to bali in october 2013. We hope that your busy discussion on internet governance you are still able to enjoy the beautiful island of bali. See you there. >> okay. That concludes or presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. >>chair kummer: thank you very much for this presentation. I wonder whether there are any questions, comments, from the floor? I see bill drake, please, and judy. >>bill drake: i was just wondering if the workshop rooms are separate rooms with walls between them? Or if it will again be a situation where you've got a large space that's been split up by sort of thin dividers and people have to listen with headphones in order to hear each other? >>chair kummer: i'm told they are separate rooms. Judy? Judy? >> thank you, thank you, markus. I'm worried about the accessibility of the venue. I didn't see any accessibility issues being addressed. >> thank you, the accessibility for the handicapped, we have it also on the venue. The venue also provide that. >>chengetai masango: when we went there, we check accessibility of the venue and also hotel rooms. There are hotel rooms available with accessibility features in them so we got that covered. >>zahid jamil: that was faster than usual. Thank you. I just wanted to ask. There was an incident in baku where i was told there was some documentation made available for the status of the internet in baku. And what i wondered was some u.N. Rule had been violated. I would like to get some more clarity about what it was that went wrong so participants didn't repeat that if there was a rule that was violated. Secondly, what would be the impact of similar publications being made available at the next igf? >>chair kummer: thank you. This is a complex question. The host country agreement the u.N. Concludes with the host country guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for words spoken or written in the conference. But it does not guarantee that you can take in whatever you would like into the conference facilities. And u.N. Has the ultimate authority what documents -- written documentation is being distributed. Now, the rules -- that's what the rules say. And there is established practice and tradition, but there is no written rules. The incident you're referring to was dealt with based on past practices as handled in u.N. Premises in geneva. We have also evolved a bit in the igf context. You were in athens, i remember that. [ laughter ] And in athens, we did have some, shall we put it, vigorous discussions. And there was quite a bit of naming and shaming both with regard to countries but also companies. We did have reactions to that, and there was the general feeling expressed that it might be better for the igf to refrain from singling out individual countries or companies. And we have a member we have refused, for instance, contribution that single that they provided -- we said we cannot accept that. There was a lot of shouting going on with the offer. But then we agreed it and the offer renamed it, instead of naming the company addressed the problem in a more generic way. I think we also encouraged in past sessions not to single out countries pointing fingers at companies but, rather, discussing issues. And we also -- there was, you will recall, one incident are in sharm el-sheikh. We had also, i think, in the past because we precisely did not want to be censors, said don't put up posters all together. Remember in rio, for instance, we told the private company that had organized the pre-event in the premises (audio dropped out) -- banners, you are not allowed to make commercial publicity for your company. You are allowed, of course, to have the meeting. The meeting was not the commercial concern but it was a meeting on open standards. Okay. We can discuss whether this is a good way to proceed or not. But, again, we have to bear in mind that we are meeting in an u.N. Context and ultimately it will be member-states that will decide whether the igf is an experiment worth continuing. And the question is -- i mean, there are various other issues. We have established a practice of an igf village. But the booths are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. So it is not so that every organization has an automatic right to get a booth. And there are also limitations to the number of booths. And that is the host country that will see how many booths will be made available. I think that's all i have to say on this particular issue. You would like to come back, zahid? >>zahid jamil: just wanted to get -- maybe not now, maybe separately, i don't know. But it may be helpful for people to know what are the sort of -- as an example for this to avoid because i don't know exactly. I personally don't know what was in that document. And that may be helpful either to avoid it or they can discuss whether or not that's a good thing. But it will at least inform people as to what to do or not. I'm trying to be helpful. >>chair kummer: yes, thank you. I haven't seen it myself. But apparently it was on the practices in the host country. It was uniquely on the host country. Now, if you have, for instance, i think -- google has an annual thing of some state or censorship of the internet globally and the map. I think that would -- there would be no objection based on u.N. Practices on something that addresses the more generic issues. But just focus on country or one company, no. Why this company is evil, i think, we will consider this as not appropriate. Now, i do know there are passionate views held about this. But then again, i would like to recall that in the end in 2015, there will be member-states who will take a decision whether the mandate should be renewed or not. And if we go against the practices that are normally used in the u.N. Context, we may have to bear the consequences. It's open for discussion. Mervi, you were the first to put up the flag. >> mervi kultamaa: thank you very much and good morning to everybody. I would also like to thank our indonesian hosts for the briefing and for the very inspiring video. I think we can trust indonesia as a very experienced host of big international meetings. And i look forward to coming to bali. I was especially encouraged to see that even the (indiscernible) rooms permit more innovative arrangements than what we have had before in the main sessions such as roundtable formats. But my question is about the high level event which is forcing to take place one day before the actual opening of the igf. I know it has been the tradition that the host country is in charge of the arranging the event. But i hope it will be arranged at a truly multistakeholder format on equal footing and hopefully there will be much attention given to what kind of topic will be discussed there and that it will be well-defined beforehand because it is really the selection of the topic which is very much linked to what kind of high-level representatives we get to bali and what kind of attention it attracts. Personally, i hope that we could bring more parliamentarians this year than perhaps in the recent years and hopefully the international parliamentarian union, the ipu, could help us in this manner. I know before they have organized some kind of briefings in very knee have a for parliamentarians. I attended one of them which was very good. So once we know the focus of the high-level event and we know a little bit more about the substance, i hope that we could attract parliamentarians as well. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. I wonder whether you or a member of your delegation would like to comment on the high-level event. >>ashwin sasoneko: yeah. We do also plan to make the so-called roundtable. Plan it on the 21st because igf will be on 22, 23. We will do it one day in advance. Okay. That's what we plan today. We can ask (saying name) if you can say more about the plan. It is understood this is not an igf event but it was arranged by the delegation group. Please. >> thank you. The actual igf meeting is on the 22nd through 25th as i told you before. And the 21st is we added for high-level meeting. We just try to plan that the high-level meeting would be an asia-pacific high-level meeting but it is not decided yet. For the question about the rooms, the first question, i think there is no problem for the rooms because it is a conference center company. Right now they are still building another venue. Same thing as right now, the venue right now. So the rooms will be developed -- will be ready in august because it will be used by apoc (phonetic) meeting in the first week in august. It is about 20,000 attendees for the apoc meeting. So it will be used from the 20th to 25th. Thank you. >>chair kummer: i also noted as mervi did in the presentation the big roundtable setting. It is obviously attractive if you have have roundtable workshops. The question will be if it is able to change the configuration in short time. That's a detail chengetai and the host country will sort out. There are other people. Anriette, andrei, izumi and i think you have remote participants. >>anriette esterhuysen: i just wanted to echo the comments about the pre-event. I think it's challenging but on the one hand, it is really good to get high-level representation from governments because it does add to the stature of the igf. But it is also important to get people from governments who actually stay for the entire event and were not so senior that they have to rush home immediately after the high-level event because we really do need more, particularly developing country participation in the igf. So i think the selection of topics and maybe the selection of -- or the planning of more sort of practical problem-solving events either inside the igf or also as pre-events that can attract and be useful to governments. I think on the issue of the distribution of material, i think, markus, your points about the future of the igf and risks to that are really relevant. But i think those risks run both ways. Think, one, it is important not to alienate governments in the u.N.-decision-making system. It is also important not to alienate the global community and the internet community which does value the free flow of information and very highly. And i think the world has changed as well. What happens in the internet universe, or the world post-internet, and we have seen that with wiki leaks and other instances like that, that information is restricted in one place, its dissemination explodes in another. I'm not sure how effective those protocol which is have polite intentions, how effective those protocols are and they might actually create more tension and more feelings of being persecuted than just letting things be. And i do think that while you've explained to us the context, what we found in baku was that for newcomers to the process, that subtly is actually really difficult to use as guidelines. I do think we need something that is going to have to be -- either you have to be a little bit more open and let things be -- (audio buffering) -- more guidelines. I think we find it difficult at the time to not have any written guidelines available to refer to. So it is still a little bit unresolved. >>chair kummer: i agree. And i think in the past, that was maybe not communicated well enough. And i think it was chairman malcolm who made the point in baku that if the mag was actually doing that, discussed the basic framework. But, as i said, it has a certain history and no naming/shaming was the result of the first session. There was a clear feeling if you go down that way, we end up in a (indiscernible). (saying name). >> this is (saying name) kelly from freedom host. First, i would like to congratulate indonesia on that wonderful presentation on for truly embracing the spirit of multistakeholderism. I was quite encouraged by the presentation and i look forward to working with indonesia in the coming several months. I would like to echo a couple points that were made before and one has to do with some of these written rules. As anriette mentioned particularly for newcomers and newcomers from civil society, it is very important that they feel that they can participate on equal footing with some of the other members. So having the situation where they felt one stakeholder had decision-making power over what other stakeholders can distribute was kind of a weird dynamic at the time. Of course, we acknowledge that the rules exist and i'm also, like my colleagues, trying to be helpful in trying to figure out how to best go about it. I would also like to stress the importance of making these rules transparent and clear and putting them on the web site if that's also helpful. I will tell you from the experience of freedom house which has been involved with the u.N. Process since the very beginning, considering that eleanor roosevelt is one of our founders, even for us it was confusing at times because when it came to that particular literature that was mentioned, at certain points, even freedom house put on our table and then we were told not to hold it there. So even for an experienced organization, it was a bit difficult to really truly navigate in terms of what's permitted or not. For example, for us, you know, since we have worked with the u.N. For a number of decades, we notice that even within the u.N. There are different rules. For example, whether something is permitted within a particular session or whether something is permitted to be distributed in the hallways or in the village and so forth. So having that clarity is very important. My second point has to do with the participation of local organizations and local stakeholders. One thing that was very apparent in baku was that, for example, in a single civil society organization from azerbaijan was given a booth in the village. I understand that the number of booths is limited and there is a preference given to international stakeholders and organizations. But not having that local presence was truly missed. And i think it was also a bit of a missed opportunity to allow that voice. And just finally in terms of logistics, my third question has to do about the current site in indonesia and whether there are going to be enough rooms for bilateral meetings because i know in the past that has sometimes -- sometimes been challenging to navigate the side meetings that a lot of different stakeholders like to organize. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Just one correction, it is not that one stakeholder group has control over the document. It is the u.N. It is u.N. Staff that basically under the u.N. Rules has the responsibility. The problem is these rules are rather vague. So it is based on past practices and i think you pointed out rightly that there are different practices in different parts of the organization. As far as i know, i was not involved there at all. But the staff member who took the decision took this decision based on his experience in the u.N. In geneva. But i would like to ask chengetai to comment because there is under the "frequently asked questions," there are some notions on the web site of what documentation is allowed. Please, chengetai. >>chengetai masango: yes. We do have something under the "frequently asked questions." this can be expanded and also -- i don't know if you have got any ideas how to make it more prominent. One of the other problems is that we've got so many things that we would like to make prominent, we don't know exactly where to put everything. On the web site under the "frequently asked questions," we have just a short question on the distribution of materials and written materials and documentation can be distributed at the designated areas of the igf venue. We found out that in most venues, we have materials being distributed, let's say, at the lunch area, et cetera. We would like to stop that and only confine it -- not for censorship purposes, just for tidiness and neatness purposes -- to designated areas. Documentation related to the workshops subject matters can be distributed in the workshop rooms and should be removed by the workshop organizer at the end of the workshop session. I think that's fairly clear why we say that. Organizations that are holding a booth in the igf village can also distribute materials at their booth. Materials found in non-designated areas will be removed immediately. Their distribution of materials should be internet governance related of noncommercial nature. The documents should follow u.N. Guidelines on suitability and should be blatantly -- should not be blatantly inflammatory or potential libelous and actions and arguments should be criticized based on their merit and not their source. Of course, we can't really set very precise rules because some of these things are a matter of judgment as well. But we'll try and expand it and do something that's better. >>chair kummer: thank you for that. (saying name), you have a remote participant, i think? >>remote intervention: i received this remote e-mail intervention from jeremy malcolm which is related to the distribution of material. At the baku igf meeting, concerns were expressed by a number of participants about constraints on freedom of expression at the meeting following from the seizure of certain civil society publications by u.N. Staff. This recalled a similar incident at the previous igf meeting when u.N. Staff removed a poster at a civil society book lunch event. As a measure toward preventing similar incidents in the future, chengetai masango accepted my suggestion in baku that a written set of guidelines be provided for discussion by the igf community that would clearly delineate the u.N.'s view of the acceptable bounds of both written and oral communications at igf events. I would like to know what is the current status of the preparation of these written guidelines. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Whether or not you can hang up a poster has nothing to do with freedom of expression, that it has something to do with whether or not you allow people to put posters all over the place or not. And there are certain rules like the u.N. Says. Drinks are not allowed in the room. And i see a bottle of water. I don't know if that's allowed in unesco or not. But in geneva they say no drinks are allowed in the room or sandwiches. There are certain rules the host is allowed, i think, to impose and enforce. Thus chengetai said, it is a question also of tidiness of the facilities. But, yes, okay. I think we're working on these rules and expanding. Yes, jeff? >>jeff brueggeman: i think a suggestion might be to issue clear guidelines in this particular case with this facility, what will be the designated area so there is no confusion ahead of time. That might help. And then chengetai, the guidelines you read, you have a substantive component. So it might also help to clarify what is the process for getting content reviewed so that -- my impression from not being directly involved, the word gets out about the arbitrary decision about the material not fitting the guidelines. It might help to reassure people if they knew what the process was, if something is going to be removed on substantive grounds as opposed to being posted in th>>chair kummer: thank you. Yeah, i mean, i certainly agree with anriette, that these practices were established well ahead of wikileaks, and times, they are a changin', and quite often, actually, by imposing these rules, it has the opposite effect. It actually amplifies the issue which nobody would have noticed. I do remember in the wsis one in geneva, there was the cohost, tunisia. They went around, taking documents they saw in the exhibition part. I mean, that was the old government. That did not have a stellar record on freedom of expression. But as i said, i think the times, they are a changin', and we have to see how we can adapt our practices, i think, to this evolving situation. But, you know, the action of naming and shaming, and i'm sure the business community would agree to that, that you would, for instance, not consider it helpful if single companies are -- individual companies are singled out for practices. However, if there is a report on business practices that addresses a global issue, then it's slightly different than an inflammatory leaf let singling out one particular company. Izumi? >>izumi aizu: thank you, chair. Yes, i'd like to echo what jeremy and jeff pointed out. I'm not talking about the substance of the rules, but procedure. I think igf is a place for innovation from the very beginning, even under the u.N. Framework, and also we are a sort of multistakeholder setup, that the rule-making process itself is very important. And i also suggest that are the secretary will prepare a document well before the next may consultation meeting, not only to the mag but for the world, and so that we don't have to repeat the same argument, you know, again and again. That's my one sentence. My second sentence is about this -- first of all, i'd like to really commend indonesia to kindly offer a very pragmatic and great opportunity in bali. Being familiar with the geography and the area, to some extent the participation from the southeast -- or south and east asia to igf hasn't been really as much as what we wanted to, with the exception of perhaps hyderabad where we had more than 30% from asia. So -- and we have a lot of ldcs and pacific islands near indonesia, so it would offer a very good opportunity for them to sort of participate into the multistakeholder igf, so. -- And i also really see that indonesia is almost exceptionally well exercising the multistakeholder thing. Ngos, isp associations, businesses and the governments together working, so i really would like to see it to be recognized by the other regional folks as well. As for the high-level meeting which was also discussed, i share the concern that although i understand it very well, it's a sort of host country's prerogative, if not the host government's, although it is called as a ministerial and it may be that the devil might be in the details, not in the other areas, but i'd like to suggest if -- as much as possible to try to stick to the multistakeholder principle, if they carry igf as a title of the meeting, and so sometimes i think it's better to have a little bit more transparency, openness. We don't know who is -- if it is -- in my understanding, it's by invitation only. This is the past practice. Some of the civil society members and the business people outside the government are invited while others are not. And we don't know how it happens. Of course you have the freedom to select. But if you could make some way to share this process or as well as the substance or result to all igf participants, not a secret meeting but a well architected meeting output, that would be very helpful for the -- continuing the discussions. Finally, also i'd like to encourage some of the high-level officials, they come to the high-level meeting, they may come to the open ceremony. That's it. I experienced that with my delegation last year -- well, previous years -- and we tried very hard to get them to come to our sessions, main session, and they said "sorry, you know, my schedule is -- i have to fly out in the afternoon of the opening ceremony, can't really stay." So in the spirit of the multistakeholder openness, i'd like to really encourage the next high-level meeting to try to come up with some of the ways -- maybe the details -- so that they can engage in longer and deeper with us. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you for that. I think there is a strong message coming from the room encouraging you to make the opening session -- the pre-event ministerial as multistakeholder as possible. From and there's also -- i think we had a good discussion, and chengetai has some homework for the may meeting to elaborate a little bit more on the rules for documentation in -- at the igf in bali. Would you like to comment? I think we have concluded the discussion on your presentation and i think you saw everybody is remember happy and excited and looking forward to coming to bali. >>ashwin sasoneko: yeah. Thank you. First of all, as was mentioned, the igf meeting will be held just after the apick meeting, so we have -- we'll host the apick first, and then we host the igf, so hopefully the organizers will have better facilities and so on to do the apic meeting, which hosts something like 20,000 or so people with so many (indiscernible) coming. Now, secondly, all the inputs are well taken and of course we have to consult how we will arrange the -- the high-level meetings or if it looks like it's still in the preparations so all your notes, all your inputs are well taken as a high-level meetings that we will have one day before the igf. Now, secondly, we will of course as your proposed how to hold the high-level government officials to stay and involve and getting more involved in the -- what's it called -- igf meetings and so on, where we will do our best. I mean, i cannot promise you that one minister will stay for three days or so. I mean, that's, of course, beyond my capabilities. But what we will do is that we will propose -- we will promote the igf meeting as well as the ministerial meeting and high-level meeting and so on, and on all occasions we'll have the asian and partners meeting in a few months' time, we will have the apic meeting also. We have apic some mean -- similar meeting in jakarta, and last month during the apic, some meeting for electric commerce, we already propose that the high-level government officer can stay after the -- the meeting for the rest of the igf. So that's what we'll do our best to make sure that most of the high-level government representatives also stay during the igf. And perhaps igf can also provide them with when -- when they stay, they can also give inputs during the meetings. They have to make some sort of short presentation of what happened in the -- in the ict field in their country, for example, or, you know, things like that. Bearing in mind that in that part of the world, in southeast asia or even south asia, the development of the internet is so -- so fast, and the problem faced by the government as well as the community is perhaps important to be more understood compared with the other more developed countries, like in the u.S. Or like in europe and so on. How most of the areas, like, budapest convention, for example, how the budapest -- how we see what the budapest convention from the local legal system. I think that is the kind of things that can be dissented and discussed in many discussions during the igf meetings. Not only the social sides, perhaps, but also the legal sides. As perhaps as you might be aware, some of the asian countries has just -- like japan just adopted the budapest convention, after so many years, but so has t theunited kingdom. (indiscernible) budapest convention, so there are differences in adopting that. And it is also important to see how the start of the world (indiscernible) countries see the development of itr. Different in asian countries, the discussion on itr is -- well, what i should say? -- very hot? Very warm? I do not know. I'm sorry about my english. But even in southeast asia, you have countries like singapore but you have also countries like indonesia, you have countries like myanmar where there are some differences. And yet the similarities is that the ict is developing so fast, but the community, the readiness of the community, the readiness of the legal system, might be different from one to another. So this is -- this should be a very important topic, interesting topics to be discussed later. And i'm sure that the government representative will be more than happy to share with all the shareholders the problems that they may -- they have, because we -- those countries have their own problems and they also need to discuss with all the stakeholders with each, you know, rather than in a more official meetings and more bilateral countries-to-countries agreement and so on, and probably discuss if multistakeholder in bali (indiscernible) will be very useful for the development of ict globally or regional, as well as not only ict sectors but also the other sectors, because we would like to see also how ict can support the other sectors' development. Just for one -- one -- just for one -- can i give you one small example, for example? One of the trends in -- in some different countries is that if you have a house problem, if you remember a doctor, you want to make a practice, open practice, then you have to apply for application to open house health doctor consultations. Now, with ict, for example, a doctor in (indiscernible) part of the world can open the consultations in that area through the ict tools. You can do an operation, if you like. Now, there is also -- this is very interesting. It's how the presence of the doctor is there because of physical presence. They're the kind of things that was interesting to be discussed as the -- as what -- as one of the ict applications. Another one is the property -- as you mentioned, property -- how you call it -- intellectual property right, which also has importance, bearing in mind that in this part of north and south asia, for example, the -- the business, entertainment business and so on, is growing so fast, while there are so many cases regarding intellectual property rights, as well as online piracy and so on. (indiscernible) for the government of name (indiscernible), and to solve that kind of problems, while on the other hand, we get complaints from the property owners, on the other hand, we will have complaint from the freedom of getting more and more informations, how to balance all of this are perhaps interesting things to be discussed in -- in the meeting rooms. So ladies and gentlemen, i think -- well, we can have more and more topics to be discussed, of course, and i think with the -- we can keep all this government representative longer, it will be more and more -- it will be better, and i will do my best in all -- in all occasions to ask them to be -- to stay and discuss with each the problem with the global multistakeholders. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you very much for that, and i think with that, we conclude this segment, and would like to give the indonesian delegation a big applause for their presentations. [ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you very much, and i think we all look forward to coming to bali. Can we go back to our own planning exercise? I think the next issue i would like to discuss is basically how to launch the call for workshop proposals and in more concrete ways to look at the selection criteria. Looking at the criteria we had for 2012, i want -- could we put them up on the screen? Well, you'll find them on the igf web site, if you look under the -- >>chengetai masango: under baku, if you go to the right, you see baku, and selection -- i m mean-- >> (speaker is off microphone.) >>chair kummer: anyway, the criteria, they're a little bit difficult to find, maybe, but you have to go on the left and then scroll to the baku meeting and then there's the preparatory paper and it is on page 18, and you'll find the selection criteria, and there are a number of bullet points. And i think there are, on the whole, good and relevant, these criteria, and maybe we don't really need to invent new ones but that is something i would like to discuss. The question in my mind was maybe more where they really actually applied. Bullet point number 1, the requirement of having submitted a substantive on workshops organized in previous igf meetings. Number 2, degree of multistakeholder support and participation. Number 3, developing country support for gender balance. 5, youth participation. 6, balance of speakers to participant discussion and the design of the workshop. That is, the degree of international planned. Then relevance to overall theme or one of the key themes, including the area of emerging issues. Relevance to the attendees, both physical and remote, at the igf meeting. And last, suitability for remote participation, for example, linkage to a hub event. So they're quite comprehensive material and i'm not sure whether they were actually applied to all the proposals, but there were several statements made yesterday that maybe we should also tighten the criteria, so this is a -- they are on the screen. These are the selection criteria for the 2012 workshops. Izumi, please. >>izumi aizu: thank you. On the first -- i cannot read from my eyesight, but the point i found is that the requirement for submitting in the past report or something -- right? -- that what if you are very new and you might be dis-encouraged unless you have somebody that you can put together, so i'd like to see some kind of measures to help the newcomers to welcome, encourage, or support them added somewhere. Thank you. >>chair kummer: gentlemen. That can be misconstrued, it's true. It's not that you have held workshops in the past but if those who have held workshops in the past, have you indeed submitted a reports. And i think that has helped a little bit, because in the past, reporting was very slack and i think -- >>izumi aizu: if i may. >>chair kummer: yes. >>izumi aizu: and putting it in the first bullet point, it really sounds like, you know, unless you did that, even that you meet the other criteria, you're out, so just kind of modification for the details. Thank you. >>chair kummer: point well taken. Ayesha and then lucinda. >>ayesha hassan: thank you. Ayesha hassan speaking. I agree that the criteria are pretty comprehensive. I'm supportive of moving the first bullet lower down or -- but i would also say i think that it was really a matter of the bag not implementing these criteria, so i think we need to be much more stringent about this and brave to say, "no -- or if you haven't really ameliorated by the things that were done by the mag in may, if you really don't ameliorate, you get cancelled and i think that's just going to have to be an at the time-in-stone approach this year. The other thing i was going to say is maybe we can explore if there's some kind of -- where somebody would submit a workshop proposal, if there's a way to put something on the web site that says "do you need help?" I know it's a burden on the igf secretariat, but hopefully some of the resourcing can be built up so that there is help for people to understand, you know, what they really need to do. >>chair kummer: well, that was -- we discussed that yesterday, and i think we agreed that we, for instance, would hold a webinar for newbies to explain a little bit how it works. So a kind of workshop help desk, yes. Lucinda and then c constance. >> thank you. I think it's very helpful to have criteria. I think they can show the seriousness, if you like, of candidates, so i think as was ayesha was saying yesterday, it's a lot of work to produce a successful workshop, and maybe by someone adhering to all of those, it can show that for a new person, they're prepared to do that, and they will have a successful workshop. As i mentioned yesterday, i think it's really important to understand the context of the workshop and also if there are going to be constraining factors, and so that those applying can't necessarily meet all of your criteria, and perhaps you should make an option for that, for if it was a sole youth focusing, there may not be young people attending from across the whole geographic spectrum, so to give people an opportunity to say why, perhaps, they can't meet all of those, but what their specific reason for their workshop is. >>chair kummer: thank you. Who was next? Constance? Constance? >>constance bommelaer: thank you very much, chair. We had mentioned perhaps requesting that individuals commit to preparing very well in advance their workshops through conference calls or even informal meetings on-site during the igf. I think that that would help. And also limiting the number of workshops -- workshop proposals from -- from individuals and various organizations. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Nurani? >>nurani nimpuno: thank you. Nurani nimpuno, net noticed. I just -- i would simply like to echo ayesha's comments. I don't think the challenge in the past has necessarily been the selection criteria. The challenge has been that we haven't actually implemented them, so let's do that this time. Let's follow up on workshops, and if they -- if we get back to them and they, in the second round, simply don't improve their workshop proposals and don't meet the criteria, then they get cancelled. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. But i think we should also -- lucinda made a fiscal point that they minot apply to all workshop proposals. So it's a "to the extent possible" clause. Bill? >>bill drake: thank you. Last year, we -- when we did the ranking, the criteria we ranked against was actually only five of these: relevance to the particular issue, geographical representation, completeness of the proposal, gender balance, and multistakeholder representation and representation of diverse views. And i had a number of conversations with people who were asking exactly how the ranking was working, given the fact that there was this long list -- excuse me -- of criteria, but we aren't actually applying them. So i think we need to be a lot clearer in our communication about exactly what we're doing. It is very much the case that not all of these are going to be really applicable in each case. I mean, it's great to say we should have youth participation. Somebody's organizing a workshop on some technical details of ixps or something, you may not find youth who can do it. Developing country support, a lot of people ask me "what does that really mean? Do you have to get a government, a developing country government to endorse your workshop?" now, i've been able to do that sometimes in the past, but some people might not have the connections to be able to do that. So we put these things up there and they're not entirely clear to everybody exactly how much weight we're really attaching to them. It doesn't do us any good to set standards that -- not only that we don't, you know, precisely follow but which can't easily be followed, so i think if we're going to have these standards, we need to have more explanation for the community that logs on, saying "no, there's a -- we're talking about an overall balance among these factors and that in particular, when it comes to ranking the workshops, we have this particular emphasis on xyz. (indiscernible) when i look at them, their particular trieds from the internet governance community that are all sort of on the same page about something and they get together and talk about something and that's great and interesting, but it doesn't make for a lot of dramatic tension or representation of the rest of the views in the larger environmentsome. So if i was going to emphasize anything in particular, for me the multistakeholder representation, the diversity representation, gender balance, these things -- and completeness of the proposal. We just -- in my view, we let way too many go through that just were so incomplete. I was astonished, frankly, at the end of the day, how many -- how the bar kind of changed. We did all this elaborate ranking, we spent all this time doing this, and so many of the proposals were in such an early stage of development that i thought my god, i mean, the deadline's been clear for months, you know, and you're sending us something with no names on it and three sentences, and that gets -- that ends up getting approved. So i really hope that we can be a little bit firmer on the completeness of proposal requirements and be clearer about exactly how people should read these things. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Judy. And anriette, yeah. Oh, sorry, vlad, first. >>vladimir radunovic: thank you. Vr. So criteria, i think in general, it is okay and we haven't been implementing that. The question is if we want to limit the number of workshops. For azerbaijan, we decided not to because we had enough rooms. As i understood the indonesian host this time, we can also have enough rooms. It's a matter if we are going to select the workshops based on this criteria, and even limit the number in spite of the number of rooms, but my bigger problem in this is the practice. If you go through the criteria and in practice when people are putting up the list of speakers at some point, to have a multistakeholder balance, a geographical balance, a gender balance, a youth involvement and so on and so forth, you have to have 10 participants and it was absolutely impossible. I think the greatest mistake was insisting on names. I don't care about names. You can give me anybody on the panel as long as they address these different perspectives. So i think one of the biggest problems is asking the names. Instead, what i would ask for when we are asking for the application is what is the format? Is it a roundtable? Is it an open discussion? Is it a panel is this are you presenting? Are you discussing? Are you coming to results? So what is the stage? It is the level of interaction and maybe the names of the moderators. This is much more important for interaction than the names of the panelists, and also we don't know the panelists up until the last moment, who is going to show up. It is the names of the organizations and organizers, so the -- even the persons that are taking the role to organize this, and based on that, we can say "okay, we know these persons are reliable, we can check, we can talk to them after all, so this is something firm," and finally, the topics that are going to be addressed, not only the thematic correspondence with the teams we set up but also specific topics you're going to address, and how are you going to address the youth angle, the multistakeholder angle, the development world angle, and so on and so forth. So not who, but how you are going to address it. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Judy? >>judy okite: thank you, markus. I would like to speak before vladimir because he has taken away all of my words. [ laughter ] >>chair kummer: olga? >>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. Some things have already been said. This is olga cavalli from argentina. The gender issue, it is sometimes a problem. There are a few women from latin america, so some of us are invited to ten workshops at the same time. And that's challenging. The ages, youth, i mean, i like young people and mixing ages, are we going to ask how old are you to put them in the correct workshop? And also diversity does not apply to all the issues that are addressed in a workshop. For example, we organize a workshop each year about latin american languages in the internet. Honestly inviting a speaker from asia to talk about latin american and native american languages is strange. I think the challenge is how we do the revision. If we don't have enough information to decide and if we can somehow have a tool to divide all the information in a more selective way, i agree with bill about the relevant issues of diversity of views and i also agree with vladimir that the names of the moderators is perhaps more relevant than the panelist. And perhaps we could think of other formats for presenting the workshop. Maybes an open space for a moderator focusing on some issues or round tables. To stick to this format of panelists and these rules, sometimes these rules in my modest opinion are somehow restrictive and makes us repeating some of the panelists because of the lack of people available in some igfs. Thank you very much. >>chair kummer: thank you, wendy and theresa. >>wendy seltzer: thank you. Wendy seltzer here. I wanted to recommend that we take a more holistic view of our project, that our project is to put on a multi-day event and we should ensure over the multi-day event there is diversity of genders of ages, of geographic regions, of topics. We shouldn't require it at the microlevel of every panelist or every encompassed the entire spectrum. I think we can then make sure that we're looking at those criteria while allowing a little bit more leeway in the individual events. I'll also say quickly recognizing the attention between giving lots of people opportunities to do something and justify their attendance and interest in keeping the numbers of parallel events down, i think that's another reason to support lots of alternative formats so that we could have poster sessions and lightning talks that give many people an opportunity to be presenting, be engaged in dialogue without stacking up dozens of events at the same time. I would suggest even if we're unconstrained by the number of rooms, we should impose that constraint on ourselves so that we're not forcing people to look at a grid of dozens of boxes in a row to figure out where to go next but rather a smaller number of magnet events. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Theresa. >>theresa swinehart: i think in relation to a couple of comments made, one on the issue of the number of workshops, we don't need to fill all the rooms necessarily. But also, too, an observation that con stance had made about the important of adequate preparations and really forcing that part of the preparation at the early stage. And while i would hate to get into a situation of, what do you call, micromanagement, i wonder whether as part of the workshop proposals, we should ask the proposers to provide just a brief description on how they intend to approach the workshop, how they intend to have an interactive and creative dialogue and if they could touch on how they will be preparing for that given the diversity of participants. It might also encourage workshop proposers to think a little bit about the amount of work and preparations that need to go into it rather than just the submission of a list of panelists with "to be confirmed" next to it. It is just a thought. A small sentence, one or two, to do that. >>chair kummer: thank you. Jeff? >>jeff brueggeman: having been on both sides of this last year, organizing a workshop and trying to review this, we had a lot of the same discussion last year about being tougher. And i think we need to adjust the process as others are suggesting, if we have any (indiscernible) of doing this. I wanted to start with anriette's suggestion clear about a thematic roundtable. I thought it worked extremely well. That's the kind of innovative, new thing that, i think, helps, maybe what we could do is take a much more active role in the thematic priorities that we decide and say there is a track of workshops and we will filed five as feeders. But we will demand early in the process what is the substantive issue you are taking on, what's the format. I think we should give more time to fill in the names. But i think ultimately it is important to have a balanced set of views and we should reserve the right maybe to suggest additional participants or help get a better range of views, if need be. I think having that early in the process, i was pretty (indiscernible) in may that you didn't know what was going to happen later. If you could force the substance. I know merging two workshops, i think we should try to force those combinations as early as possible. Maybe the first step is identify issues and say does anyone else have an interest in this issue in let's make it very easy to connect people together on those. And i guess the other suggestion i was going to make was to identify innovative topics or other issues that we think should be prioritized. It is hard to reject things but if we start by affirmatively filling this priority, this priority, we make it to the point where it is easier to say, well, your workshop just didn't meet any of the other priority criteria so you're down here and, you know, kind of on the margins. But i feel like we should focus on what we want to be affirmatively worked -- let's have as many good workshops as we can instead of focusing on weeding out the bad ones. That might be a better way to address this problem. I feel like last year we ended up struggling finding ways to deal with that. >>chair kummer: now there are many speakers on the next. Ricardo next and mark. >> thank you, ricardo (saying name). I wanted to echo my colleague's suggestion to focus more on the methodology and the content of workshops and the panelist focus. Let me share just an experience at the baku igf. I had a chance to participate at the new delegates briefing session, introducing the ig4d main theme. Given the interactive format said by vlada which i applaud, by the way, we had the chance to spend some time in groups with the newcomers according to their interest. Let me say that i got really impressed by the newcomers' concrete expectations. And in that sense, i believe we should focus and we should value workshops that intend to submit best practices, global models or submit a set of rigid options about specific topics. So, in brief, i just want to support the idea of including in the criteria aspects related to how the workshops are going to set up methodologies of -- innovative methodologies of participation and how they are going to address topics of especially newcomers from developing countries. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Mark? >> thank you, mr. Versus. I just wanted to come back on that theme of identifying the hot topics i think is the phrase, where we are looking for concrete a sort of distillation perhaps by the end of the forum itself or perhaps at the end of the session. So i'm coming back to what i said yesterday maybe coming on some of these topics, maybe four or five. We have a format which is a bit extended so we have time for the experts to contribute their views from different aspects, different angles, different positions maybe. Some engagement with those stakeholders, including government policymakers who are looking for guidance for expert distillation in one place and be able to go away with a set of options. So at the point of inviting proposals, i think we make this subjective pretty clear so that if it is not relevant to what the stakeholders are intending to propose, they go ahead and submit a workshop proposal or some other format, flash or roundtable or bof or whatever for their issue. I think related to this hot topic, we invite them to contribute their perspectives, ideas, maybe volunteering to take part in that extended workshop. We have already preidentified the issue. And that, i think, deters perhaps a plethora of workshop proposals which are similar to that theme, overlap and duplicate and so on. So we introduce some very instrumental management of this process right at the beginning, driven by our sense that there are following dubai, there are some key topics that we really hope and look for the igf to make contribution to and to empower stakeholders and hopefully there will be plenty of government people from -- certainly from south asia and southeast asia still there in the forum to be able to pick up on this, to empower and to allow them to take away a set of options, a set of "this is what might work for us." we'll try that or maybe, you know, combine or draw from particular options. But you can't to capture that as a result of the workshop. And i think that process starts with the invitations out. And i also really welcome the point that was made two or three speakers ago -- sorry, i didn't quite catch the name -- about the ease of navigation. That we don't construct a complex grid of workshops which is just frightening for, i think, everybody. How the hell am i going to handle that, oh, i want to be in that maybe from a particular constituent sole representative of a government. Was the word used "magnetic"? I thought that was a good term, vocal points within the program and then an enriched environment of different formats. I think that's a very good approach. Really endorse that. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Who was next? Mary and then (saying name). >>mervi kultamaa: i want to come back to the list of criteria which is ambitious to me. It is clear it is very tough to fulfill all the points of the criteria and it's really difficult for the proponents of the workshops to know what are the criteria that are the most important and against which we actually assess the workshop proposals and what are the less important ones where it's nice if the workshop proposal fulfills the criteria but it's not an absolute necessity. So perhaps my suggestion is to modify the listing of criteria by introducing two categories. First, those criteria which the proposals have to absolutely fulfill and among them the diversity of different points of views. And perhaps another list of softer criteria. For example, in addition preference is given to those proposals which fulfill these criteria and among them, i would suggest to have a knew criteria that preference is given to proposals from those entities which have not suggested workshops before. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Baher? By the way, please always introduce yourself when you speak for the benefit of the scribes. I tend to forget to give the whole name sometimes. So it is good that you have say who you are. Okay. Baher esmat. >>baher esmat: baher esmat from icann. I wanted to echo the views on the criteria regarding the number of workshops. Certainly the number is not the criteria nor is it the number of rooms. We should not try to fill in the rooms if we have plenty of them available. I think completeness of the proposal is key and to add to -- and also support what others have said about, you know, having clear description of the workshop and what it tries to achieve, i think it would also be useful to include a clear list of topics or questions the workshop is intended to address. The other thing about the criteria that is important is the multistakeholder representation of the participant. That's another key issue. I find it a bit challenging in some cases to maintain the geographical balance, and i think if we were to encourage participants from developing regions to come and organize their own workshops, we should not expect them to be able to attract speakers from other regions. Some workshops may only include speakers from one or two regions. I think that should be acceptable. We may also want to think about how to encourage or how to -- if a group wants to have a workshop with their own language, how we could possibly provide interpretation at least to english. In this particular workshop, this would certainly encourage those communities to come and participate. The last thing i want to say, and it is more of a question. I'm not sure whether some heard that the other format like roundtables and so forth, and i'm not sure whether the criteria we are discussing right now is only limited to workshops and for other formats we're going to have other criteria. I'm just questioning this. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Well, as far as i understand the discussion goes, there are many in the room who think also the workshops should be encouraged to come up with innovative formats and is rather interactive roundtable than sort of standard panel discussions. But this is something we are discussing now. Egor, at one point, you put up your flag? Yes, please. >> thank you very much, egor (saying name). Just also wanted to echo the discussions earlier about the ability to cooperate. We have had a problem, i think, in may last year when we were looking and revising different workshops. Since we have seen a number of almost identical workshops or similar workshops, we felt that we do not have the ability or the right to intervene or to merge the workshops into one. So perhaps the way out of that would be to introduce a separate category, the ability to cooperate with other candidates so that we actually can then ask them to work together and limit the amount of space by exactly or almost exactly the same issues. >>chair kummer: raul and then remote participation. >>raul echeberria: thank you. Raul echeberria. I think about the format of the workshops, i think that we can have two different kind of workshops. One format that is very highly interactive, and another format that is more speaker oriented. Sometimes there are good speakers that deserve -- it is good to hear what they have to say. I think the organizers should be very clear in saying what kind of workshops they are proposing to have. So when people attend the workshop, they know if there will be something like a conference with two or three speakers or some high interactive workshop like a roundtable. So we can at the time we are evaluating the workshop, we can find the right balance between -- or trying to prioritize the interactive workshop. But not all the workshops necessarily have to be roundtables or these kinds of things. I was thinking that one criteria thing could be to ask for geographic, gender diversity in the speakers and panelists if we want to very interactive workshops because for achieving all the balance and the diversity in the panels, we -- it is necessary to have at least four, five, six speakers. And so by definition, those workshops will not be very interactive because there would be plenty of speakers. So i think it is more important to see the diversity in the engagement in the organization of the workshops. So it is important to see the diversity in the organizers, that the workshop is supported by different kind of organizations that represent a broader range of views. Regarding the number, my last comment was the number of workshops. I agree with the people that say even the fact that we have enough rooms, we don't need necessarily to fill all the rooms. I would be in favor of limiting the number of simultaneous workshops because i think the quality is more important than quantity. I think that's also a possibility. But we have not taken the position yet to move in that direction. So i will favor that. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Yes, it is clear we cannot have more workshops than available slots. But we don't need to fill all available slots or available rooms. Remote participation? >> i will start with a comment from a mag member (indiscernible) who trying to make an intervention earlier to congratulate and thank the host country. One very question for him on that and that is about visa and facilitatation of visa procedures, particularly for people coming from africa and countries like nigeria where it can different. I'm now on workshops. I have got paul wilson from apnic, initial ashton-hart and then veronica cretu and jim as well. I will try to give them the mic. If it doesn't work, then i will read out the comment. >>paul wilson: hello, thanks, anriette. It is paul wilson. >>anriette esterhuysen: we can hear you. >>paul wilson: excellent. Nice to be there. I'm stuck in singapore. I will try to follow the discussion. It is obviously not possible to contribute too interactively. So i've got a few comments. I really do agree with (audio dropped out), there is a possibility for some sort of creative competition between formats and approaches to learn and improve as time goes on. I agree at the same time to balance that reducing complexity and not to have a huge matrix of different styles and topics and approaches in many, many parallel sessions. So i think that can be achieved some quality control exercise more diligently probably with clearer criteria up front. I would suggest to make the call for proposals with an earlier deadline. I think we should be prepared to make a short list and really encourage or go to the developing good proposals which come to an earlier deadline and can be developed down a longer track. I think the longer deadline encourages people to wait to the end and then we don't have enough time to further develop. So i think in that first round, we would not demand full exhaustive details under every sort of field of information but we would look at good concept-type proposals which have sort of quality of the idea and the proposal without the completeness in all the details. Of course, all the details need to be provided for some sort of final deadline. But i think a couple of rounds could help us to sort the poor from the better ones. I would like to see some priority given to proposals that show some linkages with previous igf themes for workshops and which sort of -- which propose to really develop those previous outputs, if you would like, or the previous results and follow them up in sort of specific ways because i think what we lack is a continuity or a connectiveness between events. There is some thoughts -- a set of similar thoughts. On another topic which i guess raul has just raised, interested to discuss or to think about how we could accommodate some really higher profile speakers, almost like celebrity sort of key notes, sort of an individual of a particular type caliber. And i'm really talking about sort of someone who can draw interest and credibility to the event and how we could have sessions that build a workshop or build something around an individual. And i know that has to be reconciled with our tendency to have sort of flat sessions, but i think there are some overpopulated panels where speakers don't have much to say needs to be balanced with the idea that -- i think as raul was trying to say, there is a possibility and it would be very good participation and i'm afraid sort of the credibility of the event. I say that knowing that it may be not be to everyone's taste. But i think -- i mean, i'm thinking of people like, for want of a better example, people like tim berner-lee. I'm also not trying to suggest purely technical stars, but i'm really after thinking about the high (audio dropped out) of that kind of degree of recognition. I think that's all for me. Thanks a lot. >>chair kummer: thanks a lot, paul. You have more? Can we have the non-mag members at the end? That's what we said. >>anriette esterhuysen: nick, if you can wait a little bit. I have you on mic but i'm going to read out veronica's input. Unfortunately veronica cannot join us in audio, but she has sent her written input. All workshop proposals should provide a description of the methodology of the workshop, whether it is a roundtable, open space, more groups, et cetera, or a mix of approaches; secondly, the name of the moderator; thirdly, key expected results of the workshop; fourthly, key issues to be addressed by the workshop and the link of the main issues with other emerging issues on the global development agenda. It is important that workshop themes come in synergy with those emerging issues such as cloud computing, open government, ict for engagement. In principle all workshops should be centered on approaches and methodology and speaker use 40% of the time for presentations while 60% is dedicated to interactive discussions. Next we have some comments from another mag member and that is jimson from my year gentleman. I will try to give him the audio but it might be difficult. Let's just see, jimson, i'm trying to give you audio. Just let us know if it works. I don't think so. Okay. No. I don't think that is working. Okay. I will come back to jimson later. Before we go to nick, my own comments were -- that's anriette, apc. I just want to go back to the suggestion made in the cstd working group on igf improvements, that the call for workshop proposals be made before the first open consultation. Now, we can't do that now but we can still make the call earlier. And i think that's consistent with what other speakers have said. And then i think it could be useful to ask the workshops which policy questions they are addressing. And in the sense that the working group on igf improvements report is suggesting we use policy questions as a framing device for planning the event. So it might be useful to add that as a question. And then i want to reinforce what baher from icann was saying. I think we need to be flexible about how we use the multistakeholder and diversity format in the same way that perhaps it could be appropriate for a workshop to have speakers primarily from one region. I think a workshop could also have speakers primarily from one sector. And next with the chair from indonesia's proposals to look at something like the budapest cyber conference. It could be very useful and then have people in the audience among the participants from other stakeholder groups who can engage them. Remember, multistakeholder participation is our goal. It has to be contentional, just form. And then i think three-hour workshops should remain something that's an option, particularly for workshops that have a capacity-buildingbut i just want to make a general point before i go back to the remote participants and that is it feels to me as if we are discussing workshops before we've actually looked at the overall flow and logic of the event and how the different components of the event will feed into a final outcome. And now we have nick ashton-hart -- >>chair kummer: can you wait, nick? We have many mics in the room. >>anriette esterhuysen: okay. In the room. >>chair kummer: yes. >>anriette esterhuysen: okay. >>chair kummer: a brief comment on why we are discussing this, because basically we have to conclude on having -- out a call for workshop proposals. So the question is how do we do that, and you make the point we cannot do it ahead of the first consultation, that's too late, but it -- your suggestion also to ask which policy question they would like to address reminds me that some years back, i think, somebody had proposed why don't we have a kind of preliminary call for workshops because once people have done their elaborate proposals, they usually are married to their proposal and not keen anymore to merge. Whereas if you would have a kind of preliminary call, what issue would you like to be involved in in a workshop, and i think the policy question could very much frame that, then we would get a list of names and we would be able to put them together "okay, you guys, now you work on the more elaborate proposal, and i think there is -- and that came across yesterday. There's no one-size-fits-all format, but i think, again, many people say we should be a little bit more open, more to have more experimentation, to have more roundtables. I think vlad made the point with the diplo experience do away completely with panelists but what is important is to have a good proposal and a good moderator and then be as interactive as possible. So -- but on the other hand, there are workshops where a more classical approach with a presentation, somebody explaining an issue, makes sense. So i think there we need to be flexible but i do remember, i think at the very first igf, we always said "we want interactive sessions and want as much discussion as possible," and -- well, up to a point, i think collectively we managed that compared to other international meetings but the stated aim was always to be as interactive as possible, and i think if we push this even a little bit further, there will be no harm. But i would be interested in your reaction about maybe a kind of preliminary -- asking for a preliminary proposal, indication of interest on what key policy question are you interested in, and then take it from there, and obviously that doesn't take long to react to that, so you could have a relatively short deadline and have an online process in assessing the people and then asking them to present a more elaborate proposal in time for the may or june meeting. We don't know yet when it will be. So this is just for discussion, and back to our list of speakers. (saying name) you have very patient and then (saying name). >> thank you, and good morning. So my point is not exactly about the themes. It is more about the -- the format and the substance, because -- well, i'm going to echo what some colleagues already said that i think it's important to underscore some of these comments. So i think that depending on the theme and on the topic that we are going to discuss we as mag, we should think whether it better fits in a roundtable format or in a -- in a workshop format. And besides that, the -- the layout of the room and the seating is very important to trigger a good discussion. And i'm sorry about my ignorance, but what happened to the dynamic coalitions? Because i don't know so much about that -- those, and i didn't hear anything about those. Thank you. >>chair kummer: we have not touched on the other formats except the workshops, but the dynamic conclusions, yes, we have them, and i think in the past they were given a slot for a meeting if they could prove that they had some intersessional activity, because the dynamic coalition should not -- the aim should not just to be have one -- some meeting, and some actually looked as if their own reason to exist was to hold a workshop-type meeting at the annual igf, and that is definitely not the idea behind the dynamic coalitions. Jennifer? >> yes, thank you. I thought i'd first respond to your request for feedback on the preliminary call for proposals two workshops. I think that is a very good idea, because one, it would allow for exchange between the mag and the workshop proponents early on, and identify where there could be possible collaboration among proponents, because we'd get to see at least where there's some potential for overlap. Secondly, i wanted to endorse -- and i apologize, i don't remember whose proposal it was -- but the flexibility of the workshops. Just as anriette i think mentioned we should have respect with what diversity means for topics of workshops, i think we should recognize that different topics may be more susceptible to certain formats, whether it's roundtables, more interactive, less interactive, and so i think that's another area where we should maintain some flexibility. The reason i originally asked for the floor was to focus on speakers for workshops. I agree with those who have said the substance of the workshops is probably the most important thing to get us started early on, but -- and it's most likely to be able to help to maintain and secure the list of speakers. There's been a lot of fluidity in speakers and participants in workshops and i think if we have nailed down earlier the actual goals and focus of the workshops, maybe we'll -- we'll be able to obtain speakers and keep them committed with you i also think it's important to have the speakers identified i didn't recall enough so we can respond to one of the open consultations feedbacks, which is ensuring new faces, new participants, and not the same people. And if we don't see who the targeted speakers are for the workshops, we're not going to be able to respond to that suggestion which we heard, i think, repeatedly. So i -- we need for find a balance in timing, and perhaps your preliminary call for proposal idea will help kind of sequence that. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Yes. Franklin, you're next. >> thank you, mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, i'm without my -- my name bag here, but anyway, thank you for the formation. I'm from franklin net to from brazil, a mag member. I would just like to raise a point to concur with some of the colleagues that spoke before me on the issue of -- of criteria for the workshops. I mean, there are some criteria that are pretty, i would say, logic, like the multistakeholder approach and the balance as -- even as a goal, and their relationship to the main topics chosen for the -- for the -- for the igf. But my point would be specifically on the diversity and on the request of participation of developing countries. We have heard some comments on the question of geographical balance and why geographic name diversity in the workshops is highly desirable. It's also impossible to have this -- all the times in all the themes have participants from all the regions. But in the other hand, i think that it's very important and absolutely possible to have in all the -- in all the -- the workshops the participation, the vision from the developing world. And i'm not mentioning developing governments. It can be from any of the stakeholders, from the civil society, from the private sector. And i think this is important because they cannot see any -- any issue or any theme or any workshop proposal that would deal with issues that did not have an impact on the developing world. Then my -- my -- my point here, my case here, is that i think this criteria have developing world participations highly -- highly desirable. I see that there was a criteria last year about this, meaning developing country support, and i read that very much as developing country participation and because participation is also support for the -- for the -- for the workshop, and then i understand that this would be a very important and (indiscernible) essential criteria for any workshop would be the opportunity for the developing world to have a voice and have an opportunity to share their views. And more than that, mr. Chairman, i see that we have in effect here a two-level assessment that should be made. I mean, not only the assessment on the workshops themselves but also on our -- on a higher level after the workshop starts to appear in the proposals starts to appear, we should have on this other -- from this higher perspective also a view on trying to achieve a framework where we have -- where we have in all the opportunities possible the participation from developing countries and also workshops that dealt with the quest and the question of development. Thank you very much. >>chair kummer: thank you for that. And i think it is a very important point and i think changing the bullet point to developing country support which was confusing to some last year to developing country participation makes it easier to understand what is required. I agree, i think it is an important point. We don't lose out of sight the development dimension, which is very much was at the heart of the u.N. Nurani? >>nurani nimpuno: thank you. Excuse me. Nurani nimpuno from netnod. I'd like to propose a way of working between now and -- and the meeting, and i'd also like to address the -- your idea about preliminary workshop. I think there's a risk of falling into this very bureaucratic way of working where we create a long list of impossible criteria to meet where -- which discourages workshop proposals, because it takes a lot of work to put together these proposals and then a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to meet these criteria, and then we spend a lot of time as the mag evaluating these criteria. Excuse me. So i think we need to work in a more dynamic way. I agree with -- with mervi that we need to clarify, maybe rewrite this document, with the criteria, clarify what are hard criteria and what are so-called desirable criteria. I'm happy to do work, together with other mag members, if need be. I think we should have more of a dialogue with workshop organizers. I -- i actually had a similar idea about having a preliminary call for workshops, so we avoid creating this long list of criteria, but to have some initial criteria where people in their proposals, in the lightweight proposals, put forward ideas. Like you say, if you've put -- if you've spent a lot of time organizing a workshop and putting together a proposal, you're already set in your mind-set then. Recognize that not one-size-fits-all. Some workshops might need to be workshops, some panels, some polite need to be roundtables, some more interactive discussions. Maybe some don't even have to be 90 minutes. Maybe some could be 60 minutes. Why do we need to impose those limitations on the -- that early on in the process? So i think we should have some initial criteria, which makes it easy for people to put in their ideas. All the mag members evaluate that -- those workshop proposals like we've done in the past, that we simply divide the list among our mag members, and so we each get a set of workshop proposals that we need to -- to -- to communicate with, so all of the mag members go back to those workshop proposers and ask them -- ask them questions according to these criteria that we've set. We can report back. We don't need a separate mag meeting for that. We could do that on the list. And based on that, i think we could do some initial pruning, merge workshops where appropriate, et cetera. And then we look at the next step as a second phase, instead, where we ask questions like "how do you plan to do this? Have you confirmed these speakers? What format do you need? Are you going to have a panel, an interactive discussion, a roundtable, et cetera?" So we work a bit more continuously between now and the meeting to secure good quality workshops. I think it is -- it's unrealistic to ask for a workshop proposal from the start that meets all the criteria and that ensures good quality. If we want good-quality workshops, we need to continue to discuss this with the workshop proposers now and the -- until the very end of the period leading up to the meeting. Thank you. >>chair kummer: (saying name). >> thank you, mr. Chair and let me start my comments with wishing the indonesian host in organizing the eighth igf meeting. I would -- most of what i was trying to say has been said by nurani, really. We are complicating the process. Workshop proposals sometimes there are issues that you cannot control. For example, when you suggest the speakers, sometimes comes a month before the igf or two, and for one reason or another they could not participate. When you put a description and you attend the workshop, one of the speakers may take about an issue in a different manner or of different relevance. There are certain things that we cannot control when we put forward the proposal and then we see that a workshop might be -- there was a difference between what the proposal was and what happened in the workshop. Not all of that is really in the control of the organizer. This is one. The criteria that we have used previously looked -- i look at that positively. It's increased the number of workshops. It's encouraged more participation, more workshops organization within each topic, so i think a light criteria that is flexible but yet linked to the themes and the activities of the receiving is really the best way to go. And i'm afraid that if we complicated the process and start with establishing rules rather than a criteria, it may discourage people from participation or discourage people from submitting workshop proposals, and this way we will lose audience. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Chris disspain. >>chris disspain: good morning. I just wanted to agree with your suggestion about a first round of workshop proposals, a lightweight round and also to endorse what nurani said about how that could -- how that could work. Thanks. >>chair kummer: thank you. Teresa? >>theresa swinehart: i think it goes to this point. We do have a bit of a chicken and egg, if i can use that expression, situation because we're looking at making the call for workshops but we i think also need to be clearer on what some of the themes are, and topics are that we're discussing, and i think if we were able to come out with an announcement that said, you know, "here's one of the key overarching themes" during the public consultations we heard the core topics around spam or principles or, you know, we heard various topics being discussed. Really put those out there, say "in this regard, we'd like to make a first call for things, creative proposals on workshops, full these criteria, please identify how you plan to fulfill these criteria" do a first sifting, and then do a second call. Instead of very -- very sort of concrete time line for this, so there's also the opportunity to ensure that we can identify a wide range of speakers who can participate, get this on their schedule, and make sure that they're able to attend. But i think we do need to make the call in the context of the substantive themes that will be discussed and perhaps we can move toward that discussion as well. >>chair kummer: thank you. A question. Should we limit a call for workshop proposals to the themes we have to be discussed or should we also not also be open to other proposals that might come up to capture issues the community may be concerned about? >>theresa swinehart: i would say leave it open, but identify that there's some themes that have come up through the consultation process as both the documents that came in prior and yesterday, but leave it open. >>chair kummer: that is basically the intention that we at the end of this meeting have a summary report which would list these themes we have been discussing. Role gha has been waiting very p patiently. >>olga cavalli: thank you. I would like to support what baher said about the possibility of having workshops in other languages. We had some workshops in spanish, but then there's no transcribing, and you would not imagine how people called me and said "why there is no transcript for this workshop?" so people do read transcribing. I have a comment. I think we have to be open about the themes. We should not limit when we make the call. We should not limit the call -- we should limit because of relevance and because of proposals are good or not good. If we have the space and we have and we have a willing host that have this venue, we should use that space, and if it's a challenging schedule, well, this is a different event. It's a challenging event. I think it's good to have diversity also in workshops. >>chair kummer: thank you. Vlad? >>vladimir radunovic: judy is going to complain again that i take all her words. Vladimir radunovic from diplofoundation. Two short remarks. One is based on what we discussed of different possible formats of sessions for the dear friends from indonesia, that to have in mind possibilities for different setups of the rooms which means from session to session, maybe changing the layout of tables or chairs and so on, avoiding high-level panels with all the seats but rather just having the seats for panelists on the same level, enough microphones because there was -- there's always been a problem with roaming microphones and persons to assist with that and bring the microphones and so on. So have that in mind when you're preparing for the igf. And the second one is a suggestion for mag, which is reflecting on a couple of previous thoughts, is that in this process -- and, by the way, i also agree with this preliminary call and this is something we can learn from the eurodig, which is working quite, quite well with the preliminary call. The other thing also works quite well with eurodig, whenever there are proposals, there are certain persons which are usually on a voluntary basis just applying to assist a workshop proposer or organizers to do it better. So this is the invitation from mag. Maybe we can make again kind of a small groups, thematic groups and volunteer from mag that can help the applicants to decide on a forum, to decide on a focus, to get connected with the other workshop proposers, and as igor and the others mentioned, and also to bring people from the region where we can communicate with the indonesians and other networks that we have in the region to bring -- involve other locals in the preparation and organization of all the sessions. That's the point. I mean, the circus is coming into that part of the world and we should mobilize that part of the world. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. And i take it we are the circus, yes? [ laughter ] (speaker is off microphone.) >>chair kummer: well, why don't we get straight to judy. >>judy okite: thank you, markus. Just two quick remarks. I support what nurani says, that we need to communicate more with the organizers for the workshops. I would just like to add if we could avoid the general remarks that normally send to the -- to the organizers. When we do evaluate the workshops, there's always a reason why we feel that this and this workshop needs to be matched. I believe it would be important if we shared that particular reason as to why we feel that this and this workshop should be matched, and secondly, if there's something that they're meant to do in their workshops, if that can be shared. Because from time and time again, the workshop organizers have to come back to you like i've received this e-mail but i don't understand it because it meets the multistakeholder request, there's the gender balance in it, there's the youth in it, and all that. And then secondly, if we could, as the mag, we could take off that that task from the secretariat, that if the particular people dealing with the thematic issues can be the one to communicate with the organizers and tell them "okay, we evaluated this particular workshop and one, two, and three are our remarks," as opposed to the general remarks that are sent from the secretariat. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Sonia? >>tom keller: thank you. This is sonia kelly from freedom house. I would like to support what nurani and a couple other colleagues have mentioned about setting some sort of minimum criteria and then desirable criteria for workshops. One thing that was queer during the previous mag meeting, when we were selecting workshops, was that we spent a lot of time going through each workshop and looking whether, for example, there is the right gender balance or whether there is appropriate regional representation, without really paying too much attention to the quality of the idea and the content of the workshop. And i would really encourage us to avoid that this time, so for example, if we were to set up clear minimum criteria in our call for proposals, we could say each workshop, even to be further considered, needs to have x number of participants from developing countries, or this, you know, gender representation as the minimum. I think that that would, at the outset, weed out some of the workshops that just should not be considered to begin with, and then from that point on, we can then focus on the actual quality, and i personally support this approach where part of the call for proposal could be focused on a specific policy question. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Baher. >>baher esmat: thank you, markus. Baher esmat with icann. I just want to support the proposal from insist emphasizing the developing countries participation in workshop, and i guess your suggestion, markus, to tweak the language from "developing country support" to "developing country participation" is excellent. To the question of whether to keep the call for workshops restricted to the themes or make it open, i certainly would say just keep it -- keep it open and, you know, do not suggest any themes. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Mark? >>mark carvell: yes, thank you, chair. I wanted to pick up, in particular, on your exchange with theresa swinehart -- sorry, mark c carvell,u.K. Government. With regard to the issuing of requests for proposals covering both themed topics and being an open process. I was trying to sort of convey that earlier on, that we -- i'm not at all suggesting that we cut off this avenue of connection to new stuff, new emerging issues, but we've for the these important issues that are on the table now, and i -- i'd like to propose that the five be the following: spam; secondly, internet exchange points; thirdly, ipv4 legacy and ipv6 transition; fourthly, implementing multistakeholder principles at the national and international level of internet governance; and fifthly, enhanced cooperation. So i put those on the table as topics we say we want proposals now on those, but also we invite proposals for other issues to be addressed in varying formats. You know, (indiscernible) through to the -- through to the established medium of 90-minute workshops. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you very much. Yuliya? Where is she? Oh, over there. >> thank you, mr. Chair. Just -- (saying name) from (saying name). Just briefly a number of points. Concerning the remote participation which is very important, i think we should pay attention to the fact that people who will be moderator for -- moderator and people who will intervene as remote participants followed the information briefing session, i don't know how to ensure they follow already what was done, but i do think it will be very important. I know that there is a number of information session organized already and the information was on the web site. Maybe we should increase the number of these sessions in order to be sure they know how to -- which press a button and just from technical perspective because i remember a number of workshops, the remote participants wanted to participate and they were unable to unable practically from a technical expect to deal with it too. Afterwards, concerning the microphones, from a very practical perspectives, i do think it will be useful to have in the rooms microphones on the table bulls microphones with -- that we can just move around, you know, or that you have more interactive session and i remember during a number of workshops, it was very hard to find these microphones just to be able to move around and to make it a more interactive session. Concerning the issue of (indiscernible), i do think we should leave this open, maybe the emerges ideas, innovative topics as well. So i think what was underlined concerning the budapest convention and the role in the region, it would be very interesting in the cybersecurity topic could talk to high-level participants because it is a hot topic practically for the region if you take into account the (indiscernible), the cybersecurity bill and the in initiative going on in the asia-pacific continent, especially in the field of the harmonization of legislation. So i do believe as it was suggested by mark to add cybersecurity as one of the topics. What was said by vladimir radunovic concerning the format of the workshops, i think it is really a very good idea to look at the formats of how and not focused on names because if we do have names from the beginning, it is one of the major points for assessment. I think in case, we assess the experts and the names and not the format or maybe the innovative idea then could appear. So roundtables or just classical workshops for a number of subjects, i think it will be a great idea. And it was said yesterday, maybe we should pay attention concerning the open forums in order not to have the duplication of the workshops and really to be sure that the open forums, it is the space where concrete organizations will present the initiatives and not to have a kind of workshops which will give an added value to this format of the open forums, once again. And at the end, i would like to say that we should encourage the new topics to come into here in order to be able to appear in to support the new topics. And maybe during the assessment process, we can have a look at is it a new topic? Because if it is a topic that came from the same organization that was organized this same topic during the last three years with the same panelists, maybe we can just ask ourselves and take a point of assessment, what is the new angle or what is the added value of this concrete workshop proposal? Thanks so much. >>chair kummer: thank you. I would like to close the list. I think we have discussed, i think, in great detail now the workshops. I think there is a general sense that we do want to work more closely and have more of a guiding role, shall we put it, with the workshop organizers. There is a general feeling that quality matters, matters more than just a number of workshops. There is not a general agreement on how we want to limit it. Some would like to limit it radically. But i think we all agree that we need to focus more on the quality of the proposals. The criteria used last year i think may be a little bit too rigid. And i notice also there seems to be a general sense that there are two kinds of criteria, there are those that it really should apply as a minimum threshold and then there are others that are desirable if possible. Among the minimum criteria, i think you said diversity of views. We had that from the very beginning. And i think that remains important, that we don't have capture in a single workshop, that workshops really allow for diversity of views to be expressed. Developing country participation i think remains important and we should insist -- we can help organizers who may not have contacts with developing countries to give speakers from developing countries. We had in the past the resource list, list of resource persons posted on the igf secretariat. That can be helpful. But it can also be more proactive in suggesting speakers to achieve the diversity. The point wendy made is, of course, very relevant, the overall diversity of the event. However, this is much more difficult to achieve when you look at each individual event that i think we all recognize this is almost impossible to achieve in a single workshop unless you have gained the time of ten people or so. But the completeness, i think, of the proposal, i think, is a relevant criteria. And i think there is also, i would say, an emerging consensus that we issue a call for preliminary proposals that don't need to be concrete but where we do get a feeling of what people are interested in. In terms of substance, we will revisit that in the afternoon. But i will give the floor to observers as well at the end of the mag members. But we had a lengthy list, and i mentioned the issues at the beginning of the meeting. But we will revisit that in the afternoon. But i think -- and also the idea to group the workshops. I would assume that we have agreement on that kind of format, that we will then look at group a cluster of workshops and organize a roundtable. Would be nice if it can be done in the big round table we saw in the main hall to make it as interactive as possible. That's a logistical detail we will leave to the secretariat and the host country to sort out. This is my sort of preliminary reading of the discussion any think also the new faces criteria is something we have to take very seriously, not just the usually suspects. And i think we're all guilty of that. We appear too often in workshops that we should maybe think when people approach us, yes would be nice but actually, i know somebody else who would fit your bill equally well, if not better, and just bring a new face to the floor. Okay. Sorry, i have talked for too long. Izumi and then anriette and then (saying name) and then we go to the observers. >> izumi aizu: while listening to some of the suggestions, i think last year we had broken into a few groups, the mag members, to evaluate the proposals by tracks or themes or subthemes. And while we are very busy inside the group to evaluate, last year's notion was as many pointed out, we encourage as many proposal to meet -- if they seemingly meet the criteria to accommodate, not to restrict too much. Although my group, we did relatively more rigorous evaluation than others. I'm not so sure. And we didn't know how the other groups were selecting until the very end. And we didn't have the time to see the overall balance or completion as a whole. I'm still hesitant to say whether we should see that overall balance after selecting each groups -- i mean, each proposal and also each thematic group in relation to if, for some suggestions are saying, we don't have to really apply so strictly of the criteria of the gender balance or representation of the regions. But that may locally accepted for evaluating the proposal in terms quality. But if you take back one step or two and see the balance, i think it will be very difficult exercise. But i think we need to at least keep in mind that viewpoint as well. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Anriette? >>anriette esterhuysen: just trying to figure out why izumi is trying to sacrifice gender balance among all the others that could be sacrificed. Not sure i agree. Thank you, markus, for giving me the floor again. I'm not happy taking space from the observers. I just want to make a suggestion for process for the afternoon. At previous mag meetings in the last two years, we broke up into smaller subsets of mag members where we addressed a subset of questions or planned in a smaller space. And i would really recommend that. This room is full of people with very good ideas and this morning we've heard a whole sequence of those ideas. I don't actually see how we can possibly process out that and synthesize them into concrete suggestions if we don't actually change how we work. So i would propose that we spend some time after lunch breaking up into groups where we look at the overall format and flow and shape of the event and, secondly, how we ask for proposals, what type of themes and questions we want to use to invite proposals? And then -- and also looking at how we would do selection and criteria -- a set criteria for selection of those proposals. There might be other issues the secretariat would like us to discuss. I just think that we'll use our resources and our time more effectively if we do not speak in just a sequential one person after another. >>chair kummer: thank you. Yes, and the setting of the room is not very helpful either. It is in a sort of classical u.N. Setting. A roundtable setting is more helpful for interactive discussions. We turn to -- (saying name). Sorry. >> thank you, mr. Chairman. (saying name), igf azerbaijan. I will try to be very short. First of all, i would like to talk to (saying name)'s comments and then i have own proposal for the next host countries regarding the preparational issues. I think it will be better to involve the preparation of previous host country staff in order to eliminate any kind of shortcuts since, let me say, i have experience to receive so-called (indiscernible) regarding the preparational issues. And i'm ready to test this as i come as i could. The second issue i would like to bring, we have noted that we have all of the prepared event summary as a report and in a short time, you will receive them. And from your stakeholders as well. The last issue i would like to inform that during the last lesson learned since igf, we gained many things and now we are ready to start up the two big projects with desa related to internet governance. In this regard, all interested parties are most welcome to join this. And the last thing i would like to add that these two projects remain funded by the government of azerbaijan with the support of you united nations development program in azerbaijan. Thank you, chairman. >>chair kummer: thank you. Start with nick, is he still online? He was waiting patiently. Okay. We give maybe the floor to adam and you try and get him online. Adam, please. >> adam peake: it would be helpful if the mag were to better define internet governance and how it should be used and considered in workshop proposals. There are plenty of other spaces in wsis follow-up for non-ig events. It seems the mag is going to take on the unenviable task of rejecting workshops or being more stringent. That being the case, i think we should consider conflict of interest, i.E., don't assess your own workshops. That would be a bit unfair. I wondered if there is any discussion in the mag about your assessment methods and how you're consistent with scoring. I've not seen anything so far. I think that's going to be important because otherwise it is rather random. How many mag members completed assessments last year? Again, if there is going to be this new stringency in assessing workshops, then i think the mag should take this very seriously. I know they do and it is hard work. I don't mean to suggest anything negative about that. But it does need a very significant number of mag members completing all assessments and that is not an enviable task, but it is important. The may meeting is also important for the assessment process. We've seen that before. The mag plus other members have been able to make good progress together, moving the meeting to june might mean mag only which might make your assessment tasks much harder and not involve as many observers which is going to be difficult. A quick comment for olga and transcription, and this isn't that helpful but actually transcription costs are quite low and i know you still have to find the money yourself but they really are quite cheap to do transcription. So spanish transcription, you could probably find online. It is really quite an affordable service. Thank you. >>chair kummer: thank you. Is nick ready now? >>remote intervention: if this igf could be a positive challenge to the (audio dropped out) raise the bar on content. Of course, i understand that decisions are self-organized but creating some basic evaluation criteria that make clear to people they have to do something more than a repeat of the past to get through is a challenge that many would choose to meet. This could also help solve the issue where there are too many sessions submitted for the available time slot and people are encouraged to simply combine multiple sessions together. It would be nice to see everyone who wants to organize a session get a slot, but that's not realistic and simply combining sessions doesn't really upgrade the content much. It just offers results in a session in which there are really large number of panels who speak one after another with little audience interaction. Thank you. >>chair kummer: andrea becalli and then robert guerra. >>andrea becalli: thank you, mr. Chair. Andrea becalli from (saying name). I will try to be brief. A lot of of the points have been covered. Is there another format for criteria? It is important if that will be further organized? If another format was going to be a new criteria for the workshop selection. And then, also, it is important to know in advance if these emerging process that workshop proposers we have to engage into. I know it is a lengthy process. It is an useful one. It creates a lot of interesting synergies. It takes time. If something has to happen, it is important that the workshop proposers are aware of that in the early stage. And then i think theresa mentioned before, yesterday in the open consultation we saw there was a call for moving to new themes. And the new themes means also workshop has to be in a way looking to the new themes. That could be parent of the selection process so asking for new workshops to (indiscernible) thematic discussion there. I think it was important to remind the proposal that unesco mentioned yesterday that we actually report back to the igf on the activities and actions that happen after the igf. Often these activities are actually discussed during the workshops. I think it is important to promote that around the other workshop organization stakeholders that are proposing workshops so they know that from the igf they can go back and show us what has been done. That's also an implementation of the multistakeholder process. I also (indiscernible) new how many new faces you bring on the panel. That's something you mention before, mr. Chair. And i think it is a good approach to being new stakeholders. One last thing, as has been mentioned before, flying panelists from one part to the other part of the globe, it costs a lot of money and doing remote participation is a resolution. So making it clear it would be important to look from stakeholders from the region. Many of the stakeholders involved in the igf have a global reach. So if they want, they can do that. I think that's something that can be part of the suggestion for the new workshop. Thank you. >>chair kummer: , andrea. Robert guerra? >>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab. I would like to thank the indonesian delegation for what is a very multistakeholder approach in putting together the igf? It really differs to some of the other organizations of the igf and really shows a progress in how the host country themselves are taking it on. In accordance to some of the comments made earlier today, i will just go through a couple of things. I would echo some of adam's comments in regards that if the mag is going to be taking on more of a task and looking at more innovative approach at reviewing proposals such as a call for topics or a call from interests, taking a look at them and then selecting a short list and then having that go out for further proposals, definitely issues of conflict are going to be important. But it is also going to shift to the mag more work to do over the next few months. And so it will be important for the mag to recognize that. But i think it is an important kind of innovation. Going to some of the comments that vlada mentioned yesterday, in submitting the preliminary proposals or statements of interest, that should be light. Perhaps that could include tagging or a couple of other things so the mag and others could more easily cluster the proposals and take a look at them but also take a look at issues that are similar and panels that could be merged. An issue of concern might be something that was flagged yesterday and today as emerging issues. Some of the emerging issues raised may not be something that the mag knows particularly a lot about. I would ask thoued maybe submitting proposals or something around emerging issues put in an explanation as to why they think this is an emerging issues and the mag may have a slightly different deadline for emerging issues or a longer window. In terms of other innovative approaches for proposals, might i suggest that a small number of proposals be up for competition and that they openly compete. A conference that's done is the south by southwest conference that takes place every we are where a variety of proposals get submitted, open to the public, and people can vote. And that might be a way to engage some of the of other stakeholders in that. It might want to do that for a small number to see how it works. But an innovative approach in helping a mag select some performances and bring the community onboard could be particularly helpful. One last comment in regards to new participants, i think that's a great idea, but i think new participants that have no idea how the igf works might be a recipe for disaster, so it might be useful for them to explain why they think they can actually contribute and maybe some experience that they bring in organizing events elsewhere. So that would be something that would be useful and perhaps if there are others that want to encourage them, if that be there as well, too. So i think it would be good to maybe include that. But for the new participants, it's key, but i think it's also careful that they also be good at it. And i would like to echo an earlier comment in regards to having high-level speakers participate that's going to draw everyone to the meeting. And the sooner some high-level topics can be mentioned, it will be easier to recruit them as well as high-level corporate officials that usually require several months' advance notice as well as heads of state. >>chair kummer: thank you. I have closed the list. I saw two flags going up. I presume it was in reaction to one of the statements. Chris first and then bill. >>chris disspain: simply just say we have actually done this thing with workshops before. This is not new. Last year we split the workshops up into the -- sorry -- the five pillars a subgroup of us went away and worked on looking at the workshops. I shared the critical internet resources subgroup. And we did actually say no to some workshops and we did require additional work so on and so on. It is not new and we have dealt with it before and we have managed it and we have dealt with conflict. >>chair kummer: thank you for that. Bill? >>bill drake: i'm going to, since people want to go eat, i'm going to resist the temptation to do my 47 points and make one. And this is something that some of us have been crabby about for years around the igf, but i'm going to raise it again because adam raised it and i'm just going to echo him. Could we not perhaps build into the list of criteria that must be met by workshop proposals that they be on global -- that they be on internet governance? As internet governance was defined through the wsis process and understood, i thought, in setting up the igf, the definition of internet governance was very much linked to the proposal to create the igf so we all know in the wgig and subsequently. There are still, every year, many, many proposals that are basically information society, ict for development, all kinds of -- anything related to i.T. And communication, information in any way. From the standpoint of having criteria that are clear to use as a threshold seems to me asking people to submit proposals about the nominal focus of the forum. It shouldn't be that complicated. So i would like to propose that. >>chair kummer: okay. Point well-taken. And with that, we adjourn for lunch. Let's be back here at 1:30 so that we can -- and let's start at 1:30 sharp. Enjoy your lunch. Talk about it and come back with new ideas. (lunch break.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 1 08:05:36 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] The 1st Arab IGF Chairman Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent report, thanks very much! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I am forwarding to the governance list the Chairman Report for the 1st > Arab IGF held in Kuwait last October 2012 and hosted by Kuwait Information > Technology Society. I hope the report will give a background on the Arab > IGF as a process and as an event. > > Best Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 1 08:22:47 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:22:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Financial Coalition against child pornography Message-ID: Excerpt from EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 11.4, 27 February 2013 9. ENDitorial: European Financial Coalition against CP (child pornography) launched...again ================ In 2009, the Swedish Presidency of the European Union helped launch the “European Financial Coalition against Child Pornography”. The initiative was based on the pre-existing US “Financial Coalition against Child Pornography,” involved the same companies and addressed the same websites. The only perceptible difference between the EU and US coalitions was that the EU coalition was funded by taxpayers' money – to do what the companies were already doing. Interestingly (and laudably, it must be said), the EU project produced a detailed analysis of the problem after its first year of operation. The outcome of this analysis was a report which produced some interesting findings. These include: - Commercial sites are generally not high profit; compared to other areas of online criminality, profits are actually quite low; - There has been a significant decrease in the number of active commercial sites that can be identified; - The producers of abuse images are likely to use small, secure areas of the internet that are password-protected to share the images for free. In other words, the assumptions on which the European Financial Coalition was based were incorrect – the profits being made are quite low, the number of sites is falling “significantly” and the problem is now small and secure, non-commercial services. Unsurprisingly, the project did not receive further funding and became inactive (apart from the work that the US coalition was doing, which the EU coalition was only duplicating, in any case). Then, in November 2012, the Financial Coalition was launched again, helpfully providing an activity for the European Cybercrime Centre to occupy itself with. The new “Financial Coalition” has re-invented itself to take account of the fact that a Financial Coalition is not actually needed. The press release launching the initiative talks obtusely about “opaque online environments” but with no clear view beyond a drive to ensure that private companies become involved in law enforcement. For example, the press release talks about involving private stakeholders in supporting “international law enforcement investigations”, not where “necessary” but where “possible” - suggesting that participation of private companies in law enforcement actions is an end in itself. It is disappointing that, yet again, regardless of what the problem is in the online environment, the answer from the European Commission is to throw money at ill-defined projects whose only unifying theme is the privatisation of law enforcement in the hands of (uniquely American in this case) private companies. Swedish Council Presidency Conclusions (2.09.2009) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st11/st11456-re02.en09.pdf Financial Coalition report 2010 http://www.ceop.police.uk/documents/efc%20strat%20asses2010_080910b%20final.pdf European Financial Coalition http://www.europeanfinancialcoalition.eu/ US Financial Coalition http://www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=3064 (Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From capdasiege at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 08:31:24 2013 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:31:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] The 1st Arab IGF Chairman Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks you AlShatti for this report, you do a beautiful job. Best 2013/3/1 Qusai AlShatti > Dear Colleagues: > I am forwarding to the governance list the Chairman Report for the 1st > Arab IGF held in Kuwait last October 2012 and hosted by Kuwait Information > Technology Society. I hope the report will give a background on the Arab > IGF as a process and as an event. > > Best Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - *Forum SMSI *du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse - *SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE* du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé Cameroun. *«Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et d**u phénomène de croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile**, quelles solutions pour des Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des Personnes et des Entreprises ? »* CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 1 08:36:06 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 01:36:06 +1200 Subject: [governance] The 1st Arab IGF Chairman Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Dear Qusai, > > Shukriya! The report was very interesting and informative and the Agenda > looked really interesting. > Best Regards, Sala > > > 2013/3/1 Qusai AlShatti > >> Dear Colleagues: >> I am forwarding to the governance list the Chairman Report for the 1st >> Arab IGF held in Kuwait last October 2012 and hosted by Kuwait Information >> Technology Society. I hope the report will give a background on the Arab >> IGF as a process and as an event. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Qusai AlShatti >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* > > Coordinateur Général > > Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile > (ACSIS) > > *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * > > - *Forum SMSI *du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse > - *SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE* du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé > Cameroun. *«Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et d**u > phénomène de croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile**, > quelles solutions pour des Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des > Personnes et des Entreprises ? »* > > CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le > Développement de l'Afrique) > > BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN > > Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 > > Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr > > Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 1 08:33:08 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:33:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner Kroes References: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org> <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133166E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-167_en.htm FYI Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 10:10:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net> References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Excellent speech overall, I have just one nit to pick: On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM, parminder wrote: > All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have > been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back > and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information > Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? > The Internet did exactly what it was supposed to do, pass packets from one endpoint to another. Asking it to do more threatens that role. If people want to equalise social and economic opportunity VIA the Internet, well more power to them, but let's not conflate the two. While all y'all were talking in Paris about Internet Governance, hundreds of folks actually did the hard work of Internet coordination, collaboration and communication for the past 10 days in Singapore @APRICOT/APNIC. You can read a very good draft history of those bodies here: http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58903/APNIC-History-1992-1995-d01-20130217.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 1 10:40:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:10:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech In-Reply-To: References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13d269cb56e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It takes doing and talking rather than just talking, as mctim says --srs (htc one x) On 1 March 2013 8:40:39 PM McTim wrote: > Excellent speech overall, I have just one nit to pick: > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have > > been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back > > and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information > > Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? > > > > The Internet did exactly what it was supposed to do, pass packets from one > endpoint to another. Asking it to do more threatens that role. > > If people want to equalise social and economic opportunity VIA the > Internet, well more power to them, but let's not conflate the two. > > While all y'all were talking in Paris about Internet Governance, hundreds > of folks actually did the hard work of Internet coordination, collaboration > and communication for the past 10 days in Singapore @APRICOT/APNIC. > > You can read a very good draft history of those bodies here: > > http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58903/APNIC-History-1992-1995-d01-20130217.pdf > > -- > 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 1 11:32:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:32:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris Message-ID: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all Here is my brief report from yesterday's IGF Open Consultations in Paris. (I'm not on the MAG, and I have not attended the MAG meeting, hence there's not going to be any report from me on that.) Clearly a significant number of the participants of the WSIS+10 review conference were interested in contributing to shaping the direction of the IGF, and have therefore also participated in the consultations. There was also a significant number of interventions from remote participants. It was unfortunate however that the audio streams for the simultaneous interpretation into the five other UN languages besides English were available only in the room in Paris, and not to remote participants. Although I pointed this issue out already in the morning shortly after the consultations started, I was told that the necessary technical set-up for addressing this was not possible to do right away. I have been assured though that it will be possible to set this up right for the next IGF consultations. The consultations were expertly chaired by Markus Kummer. For several reasons there is no need to describe in detail what was said. On one hand the transcript has already been posted. On the other hand, in many of the interventions what was purposefully not addressed was more significant than what was actually said. This was most obvious in China's long intervention shortly before the lunch break; given the Chinese government's lack of actual engagement at the IGF, that intervention was truly remarkable in its absurdity. However many of the interventions from Western cultural perspectives were in my view essentially of the same type, likewise aiming at distracting the IGF from any effective work towards substantive outcome documents on important Internet-related policy questions. This is particularly significant at the current point in time when it would have really been appropriate to focus a significant part of the discussion on how to best implement this key recommendation of the WG on IGF Improvements. On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come in. I do not object to this kind of idea being discussed at the IGF consultations, but I really think that this type of question should have been mentioned in the agenda for the consultations, so that we would have had a chance to discuss this in the Caucus in advance. (Unless the practice is continued to have a wonderfully wordsmithed theme which is however effectively totally ignored for all practical purposes related to the IGF's substantive content-- a practice which is IMO absolutely devoid of integrity-- it is of profound importance whether the overall theme is chosen to guide workshop proposers, or to summarize what the workshop proposers are interested in discussing in the absence of such guidance.) The suggestions of our caucus to have a human rights oriented overall theme and a subtheme on principles have resonated strongly with many other interventions in the debate on themes, so I think that there is a good chance of success in that area. However there was also a significant mass of interventions also that favored more techno- enthusiast theme ideas. In total I made three interventions, drawing on different parts of our consensus document, and each time mentioning an aspect of integrity. For example, our proposal for an overall subtheme of "effective participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance" points to one of the essential integrity challenges of multistakeholder governance. In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting support from anyone else. As the resource challenges of the IGF secretariat were mentioned, Imran suggested on our mailing list that volunteers from civil society might be able to help out a bit. Therefore I approached Chengetai and asked him about this idea. He expressed interest, saying that there are indeed tasks that remote volunteers would be able to help out with. So I offered my services as a coordinator of the Caucus, so that he can email me when he has such tasks and I'll then ask on our list for volunteers. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 1 12:14:47 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:14:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Norbert, a fair reflection what was said. BTW the MAG transcript os now also posted. Worth to read, on patricular the last two hours :-)))) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Fr 01.03.2013 17:32 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris Dear all Here is my brief report from yesterday's IGF Open Consultations in Paris. (I'm not on the MAG, and I have not attended the MAG meeting, hence there's not going to be any report from me on that.) Clearly a significant number of the participants of the WSIS+10 review conference were interested in contributing to shaping the direction of the IGF, and have therefore also participated in the consultations. There was also a significant number of interventions from remote participants. It was unfortunate however that the audio streams for the simultaneous interpretation into the five other UN languages besides English were available only in the room in Paris, and not to remote participants. Although I pointed this issue out already in the morning shortly after the consultations started, I was told that the necessary technical set-up for addressing this was not possible to do right away. I have been assured though that it will be possible to set this up right for the next IGF consultations. The consultations were expertly chaired by Markus Kummer. For several reasons there is no need to describe in detail what was said. On one hand the transcript has already been posted. On the other hand, in many of the interventions what was purposefully not addressed was more significant than what was actually said. This was most obvious in China's long intervention shortly before the lunch break; given the Chinese government's lack of actual engagement at the IGF, that intervention was truly remarkable in its absurdity. However many of the interventions from Western cultural perspectives were in my view essentially of the same type, likewise aiming at distracting the IGF from any effective work towards substantive outcome documents on important Internet-related policy questions. This is particularly significant at the current point in time when it would have really been appropriate to focus a significant part of the discussion on how to best implement this key recommendation of the WG on IGF Improvements. On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come in. I do not object to this kind of idea being discussed at the IGF consultations, but I really think that this type of question should have been mentioned in the agenda for the consultations, so that we would have had a chance to discuss this in the Caucus in advance. (Unless the practice is continued to have a wonderfully wordsmithed theme which is however effectively totally ignored for all practical purposes related to the IGF's substantive content-- a practice which is IMO absolutely devoid of integrity-- it is of profound importance whether the overall theme is chosen to guide workshop proposers, or to summarize what the workshop proposers are interested in discussing in the absence of such guidance.) The suggestions of our caucus to have a human rights oriented overall theme and a subtheme on principles have resonated strongly with many other interventions in the debate on themes, so I think that there is a good chance of success in that area. However there was also a significant mass of interventions also that favored more techno- enthusiast theme ideas. In total I made three interventions, drawing on different parts of our consensus document, and each time mentioning an aspect of integrity. For example, our proposal for an overall subtheme of "effective participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance" points to one of the essential integrity challenges of multistakeholder governance. In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting support from anyone else. As the resource challenges of the IGF secretariat were mentioned, Imran suggested on our mailing list that volunteers from civil society might be able to help out a bit. Therefore I approached Chengetai and asked him about this idea. He expressed interest, saying that there are indeed tasks that remote volunteers would be able to help out with. So I offered my services as a coordinator of the Caucus, so that he can email me when he has such tasks and I'll then ask on our list for volunteers. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 14:04:24 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:04:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Thank you In-Reply-To: <213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com> References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> ,<213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks so much George. It was really nice seeing you again. Looking forward to seeing you again. RgdsGrace From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:52:13 -0500 CC: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; irp-sc at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; mshears at cdt.org To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10 Grace, I thought that your presentation at the UNESCO event in Paris was well crafted, balanced, and oriented toward a better understanding of the changes that have taken place since the initial WSIS events. I was please to listen to it when you delivered it from the podium, and I am pleased that you have made it available in text form to this list. Thank you very much, both for your passion and for your ability to perceive the reality of our current situation and to report it in a clear and positive manner. I look forward to seeing your further contributions to the field of Internet governance as we progress. Best regards, George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Feb 28, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:Good peoplePlease find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing faith in me. Opening RemarksAcknowledge dignitaries and Participants As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10. The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:· Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in global reach.· At the same time most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)· Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. · Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating adoption and use of internet.· Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues.· Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in general.· Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. · A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community. However: The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data protection online. Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls for an understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it carries, and the controls that apply to such content. As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and therefore needs to be preserved. There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail. ConclusionThe right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right to information. As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense. We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address issues raised by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rights values, and benegotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed andparticipatory manner by its users. I thank you for your attention.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 1 15:28:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:28:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Freedoms Online in France: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003901ce16bb$71f2dc40$55d894c0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of La Quadrature du Net Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:36 PM To: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] Freedoms Online in France: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Themes: NET NEUTRALITY, FREE SPEECH, NET FILTERING, FRENCH GOVERNMENT, JEAN-MARC AYRAULT La Quadrature du Net – For immediate release Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/freedoms-online-in-france-one-step-forward-two-steps-back Freedoms Online in France: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? *** Paris, 28 February 2013 — Following an intergovernmental seminar on digital policy [1], French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault announced a law “on the protection of digital rights and freedoms” for early 2014. While this announcement offers hope for the defense of freedoms online, recent statements made by members of the French government suggest it is not yet ready to break away from the repressive trend initiated by its predecessors. *** The law announced by Jean-Marc Ayrault at the end of the intergovernmental seminar on digital policy alludes to a number of improvements regarding the protection of freedoms online, among which the possible legal protection of Net neutrality which is once again delayed (our translation): "If, once the National Digital Council (Conseil national du numérique) has expressed its opinion on Net neutrality, there appears to be a legal loophole in the protection of freedom of expression and communication on the Internet [then] the government will offer legislative dispositions." [2] Unfortunately, the government seems to be reducing the stakes of freedom of expression online to that of Net neutrality protection. Yet, though the latter is of course crucial to preserve the universal architecture of the Internet, it is not enough in and of itself. In the meantime, other announcements and statements by the government – such as the return of administrative filtering of websites, which was thought to be dead and buried [3], the announced reform of the French 1881 law on freedom of the press to take into account “the Internet's strike force” [4], and the calling into question of web hosting services' liability by members of the majority [5] and the Pierre Lescure working group [6][7] – show that the current French government is not ready to break away from the repressive policies of Nicolas Sarkozy's ministers. “The government does as if Net neutrality was the sole issue at stake in the protection of freedom of expression online. In the meantime, we see a resurgence of the sarkozyst rhetoric of considering Internet a dangerous lawless zone [8], which in turn justifies private polices or the return of administrative censorship. Under the guise of a law on freedoms online, which could bring real improvements, the French government is postponing a possible legislation on Net neutrality and bringing the issue of repressive measures back on the agenda.” declared Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net. * References * 1. http://www.gouvernement.fr/presse/seminaire-intergouvernemental-sur-le-numerique-suivi-de-la-visite-du-faclab-de-l-universite-d [fr] 2. After the roundtable organized in January (http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-in-france-is-minister-fleur-pellerin-of-any-use) in response to customer access restrictions by Free (French ISP), Fleur Pellerin, the French Minister for the Digital Economy, had committed to announcing at the end of February (https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/20minutes-une-loi-pour-garantir-la-neutralite-du-net-le-gouvernement-decidera-en-fevrier [fr]) the government's intention to legislate or not on Net neutrality, based on the National Digital Council's opinion. 3. The French government's commitment that an “independent control will be created for the measures of administrative filtering or blocking” (our translation) alludes to a return of LOPPSI (https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/loppsi-0), the French law of orientation and programmation for internal security performance allowing administrative blocking in the name of tackling child abuse content online Source: http://lelab.europe1.fr/t/une-loi-taubira-sur-les-droits-et-libertes-numeriques-debut-2014-au-plus-tard-7758 [fr] 4. http://www.pcinpact.com/news/77130-manuel-valls-futur-politique-penale-contre-cybercriminalite.htm [fr] 5. https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/mediapart-le-gouvernement-veut-encadrer-plus-strictement-la-liberte-dexpression-sur-le-net [fr] 6. http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/mission-lescure-reformer-le-statut-d-hebergeur-quitte-a-faire-evoluer-l-europe-39785172.htm [fr] 7. Pierre Lescure (former CEO of Canal +, a major TV station owned by Universal) is currently leading a working group advising the French government on the future of Hadopi, the French "three strikes" agency 8. A “zone de non-droit”. In 2011, after a political scandal was revealed on the Internet and by WikiLeaks' revelations, President Nicolas Sarkozy and his government described the Internet as a lawless zone to regulate, in order to justify repressive measures. On 7 February 2013, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, French Minister of Women's Rights and spokesperson for the Ayrault government, used the same words during a debate in the upper house of the French Parliament. Source: http://wiredpolis.tumblr.com/post/42835169471/liberte-dexpression-un-debat-revelateur-au-senat [fr] ** About la Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net ** Press contact and press room ** Jérémie Zimmermann, jz at laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 1 17:04:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:04:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20130301230410.70fb9e0d@quill.bollow.ch> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Thanks Norbert, > > a fair reflection what was said. BTW the MAG transcript os now also > posted. Worth to read, on patricular the last two hours :-)))) Hello Wolfgang Are you referring to Pranish's "Pre-lunch transcript" posting, or is there something else available in addition that I have missed? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 17:49:14 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:49:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <20130301230410.70fb9e0d@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20130301230410.70fb9e0d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, This has the whole Friday meeting http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1285-igf-2013-mag-transcript- Deirdre On 1 March 2013 18:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > wrote: > > > Thanks Norbert, > > > > a fair reflection what was said. BTW the MAG transcript os now also > > posted. Worth to read, on patricular the last two hours :-)))) > > Hello Wolfgang > > Are you referring to Pranish's "Pre-lunch transcript" posting, or is > there something else available in addition that I have missed? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Mar 2 02:56:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:56:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> Hi Norbert On Mar 1, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > For several reasons there is no need to describe in detail what was > said. On one hand the transcript has already been posted. +1 > > On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a > somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus > starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to > leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come > in. Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support. > The suggestions of our caucus to have a human rights oriented overall > theme and a subtheme on principles have resonated strongly with many > other interventions in the debate on themes, so I think that there is > a good chance of success in that area. I think I heard broader support for a FoE orientation specifically, including from business and TC. A bit narrower.. > However there was also a > significant mass of interventions also that favored more techno- > enthusiast theme ideas. Not sure what you mean, but enhanced cooperation, principles, and other themes CS has supported were definitely in the mix. > > In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of integrity, > I felt rather alone; it felt like during these consultations, points on > the need for integrity were not getting support from anyone else. Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of robust participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in the wilderness for integrity? Just wondering, 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 avri at acm.org Sat Mar 2 07:51:28 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:51:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0DD0DC70-5E92-4D4F-A8D3-FCC509C3F411@acm.org> Hi, Thanks for the write-up. Personally, I think getting the input from further consultation and workshop suggestions, and allowing the theme to emerge from the input is a marvelous idea. It also allows the outgoing MAG to have suggested directions based on consultations and looking back while the incoming MAG to realize and voice the bottom-up derived themes and not be stuck with a done deal. I would also like to point out that though the 2nd day's meeting was a MAG meting, the rest of us were able to attend and even to comment at various points. I think this is a great improvement over the days when the MAG meetings were close enclaves. avri On 1 Mar 2013, at 17:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a > somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus > starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to > leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come > in. I do not object to this kind of idea being discussed at the IGF > consultations, but I really think that this type of question should > have been mentioned in the agenda for the consultations, so that we > would have had a chance to discuss this in the Caucus in advance. > (Unless the practice is continued to have a wonderfully wordsmithed > theme which is however effectively totally ignored for all practical > purposes related to the IGF's substantive content-- a practice which > is IMO absolutely devoid of integrity-- it is of profound importance > whether the overall theme is chosen to guide workshop proposers, or > to summarize what the workshop proposers are interested in discussing > in the absence of such guidance.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 2 08:09:15 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 09:09:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <0DD0DC70-5E92-4D4F-A8D3-FCC509C3F411@acm.org> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <0DD0DC70-5E92-4D4F-A8D3-FCC509C3F411@acm.org> Message-ID: Hello, I woke up at 4am even though there wasn't a meeting today :-( I agree 100% with Avri, both about the welcome bottom-upness of the proposed mechanism to find a theme, and about the inclusive atmosphere of the MAG meeting. Deirdre On 2 March 2013 08:51, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the write-up. > > Personally, I think getting the input from further consultation and > workshop suggestions, and allowing the theme to emerge from the input is a > marvelous idea. > > It also allows the outgoing MAG to have suggested directions based on > consultations and looking back while the incoming MAG to realize and voice > the bottom-up derived themes and not be stuck with a done deal. > > I would also like to point out that though the 2nd day's meeting was a MAG > meting, the rest of us were able to attend and even to comment at various > points. I think this is a great improvement over the days when the MAG > meetings were close enclaves. > > avri > > > On 1 Mar 2013, at 17:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a > > somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus > > starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to > > leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come > > in. I do not object to this kind of idea being discussed at the IGF > > consultations, but I really think that this type of question should > > have been mentioned in the agenda for the consultations, so that we > > would have had a chance to discuss this in the Caucus in advance. > > (Unless the practice is continued to have a wonderfully wordsmithed > > theme which is however effectively totally ignored for all practical > > purposes related to the IGF's substantive content-- a practice which > > is IMO absolutely devoid of integrity-- it is of profound importance > > whether the overall theme is chosen to guide workshop proposers, or > > to summarize what the workshop proposers are interested in discussing > > in the absence of such guidance.) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Mar 2 08:54:54 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:54:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet theology In-Reply-To: References: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com> <05d401ce164f$44dc0360$ce940a20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 19:10:43 on Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Izumi AIZU writes >it is an open consultation, Day 1, but today's meeting, MAG meeting >which were closed meeting 2-year ago, are now actually very open and >there is almost no distinction between MAG members and non-MAG members >in this room, in restricted manner You are right about the change. I think that some of the history has been forgotten (especially by Kieren) regarding the way Open Consultations and MAG meetings have converged. Originally the Open (or "Informal") Consultations were very large meetings (hundreds of people in one of the main rooms in Geneva) and the MAG meeting was a 'secret conclave' without even observers. Over time the attendance at the open consultations reduced, and it became more like a "shadow MAG", comprised of parties interested in a more hands-on approach to moulding the event and the schedule. I think the tipping point was the time the session was held at the EBU in Sept 09, 'up the hill', rather than at the Palais, in a much smaller room. That was the first consultation where I saw workshop-merging happening in real time with organisers in the room bartering slots with the secretariat taking notes of what was agreed. Soon after that, the MAG decided to allow observers, and not long after it was agreed to accept interventions from the floor. By then we had a situation where it was much more like two days of MAG+ meeting, with a very hands-on approach to negotiating the "traffic light" charts of which workshops had qualified, and which should be persuaded to merge. -- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Mar 3 07:25:42 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:25:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential / The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case,,BY YOCHAI BENKLER Message-ID: <51334146.7000305@gmail.com> *The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case* BY YOCHAI BENKLER After 1,000 days in pretrial detention, Private Bradley Manning yesterday offered a modified guilty plea for passing classified materials to WikiLeaks. But his case is far from over---not for Manning, and not for the rest of the country. To understand what is still at stake, consider an exchange that took place in a military courtroom in Maryland in January. The judge, Col. Denise Lind, asked the prosecutors a brief but revealing question: Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the /New York Times/? The prosecutor's answer was simple: "Yes Ma'am ." The question was crisp and meaningful, not courtroom banter. The answer, in turn, was dead serious. I should know. I was the expert witness whose prospective testimony they were debating. The judge will apparently allow my testimony, so if the prosecution decides to pursue the more serious charges to which Manning did not plead guilty, I will explain at trial why someone in Manning's shoes in 2010 would have thought of WikiLeaks as a small, hard-hitting, new media journalism outfit---a journalistic "Little Engine that Could" that, for purposes of press freedom, was no different from the /New York Times/. The prosecutor's "Yes Ma'am," essentially conceded that core point of my testimony in order to keep it out of the trial. That's not a concession any lawyer makes lightly. The charge of "aiding the enemy" is vague. But it carries the death penalty---and could apply to civilians as well as soldiers. But that "Yes Ma'am" does something else: It makes the Manning prosecution a clear and present danger to journalism in the national security arena. The guilty plea Manning offered could subject him to twenty years in prison---more than enough to deter future whistleblowers. But the prosecutors seem bent on using this case to push a novel and aggressive interpretation of the law that would arm the government with a much bigger stick to prosecute vaguely-defined national security leaks, a big stick that could threaten not just members of the military, but civilians too. A country's constitutional culture is made up of the stories we tell each other about the kind of nation we are. When we tell ourselves how strong our commitment to free speech is, we grit our teeth and tell of Nazis marching through Skokie. And when we think of how much we value our watchdog press, we tell the story of Daniel Ellsberg. Decades later, we sometimes forget that Ellsberg was prosecuted, smeared, and harassed. Instead, we express pride in a man's willingness to brave the odds, a newspaper's willingness to take the risk of publishing, and a Supreme Court's ability to tell an overbearing White House that no, you cannot shut up your opponents. Whistleblowers play a critical constitutional role in our system of government, particularly in the area of national security. And they do so at great personal cost. The executive branch has enormous powers over national security and the exercise of that power is not fully transparent. Judicial doctrines like the "state secrets" doctrine allow an administration to limit judicial oversight. Congress' oversight committees have also tended to leave the executive relatively free of constraints. Because the materials they see are classified, there remains little public oversight. Consider the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the interrogation torture practices during the immediate post 9/11 years: Its six thousand pages, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein, are "one of the most significant oversight efforts in the history of the United States Senate ." But they are unavailable to the public. Freedom of the press is anchored in our constitution because it reflects our fundamental belief that no institution can be its own watchdog. The government is full of well-intentioned and quite powerful inspectors general and similar internal accountability mechanisms. But like all big organizations, the national security branches of government include some people who aren't purely selfless public servants. Secrecy is necessary and justified in many cases. But as hard-earned experience has shown us time and again, it can be---and often is---used to cover up failure, avarice, or actions that simply will not survive that best of disinfectants, sunlight. *That's where whistleblowers come in. They offer a pressure valve, constrained by the personal risk whistleblowers take, and fueled by whatever moral courage they can muster. Manning's **statement in court yesterday **showed that, at least in his motives, he was part of that long-respected tradition. But that's also where the Manning prosecution comes in, too. The prosecution case seems designed, quite simply, to terrorize future national security whistleblowers.* The charges against Manning are different from those that have been brought against other whistleblowers. "Aiding the enemy" is punishable by death. And although the prosecutors in this case are not seeking the death penalty against Manning, the precedent they are seeking to establish does not depend on the penalty. It establishes the act as a capital offense, regardless of whether prosecutors in their discretion decide to seek the death penalty in any particular case. Hard cases, lawyers have long known, make bad law. The unusual nature of Manning's case has led some to argue that his leaks are different than those we now celebrate as a bedrock component of accountability journalism: Daniel Ellsberg leaked specific documents that showed massive public deception in the prosecution of the Vietnam War. Deep Throat leaked specific information about presidential corruption during the Watergate investigation. Manning, though, leaked hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which were humdrum affairs; perhaps, some have argued, the sheer scope raises the risks. But in the three years since the leaks began, there has still been no public evidence that they in fact caused significant damage.*The prosecutors say they will introduce evidence of harm in secret sessions; one of these bits of evidence is reportedly going to be that they will show that several of the files published were found on Osama Bin Laden's computer. Does that mean that if the Viet Cong had made copies of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg would have been guilty of "aiding the enemy?"* *If the Viet Cong photocopied the Pentagon Papers, could Daniel Ellsberg have been prosecuted for aiding the enemy? * It is also important to understand that although the number of leaked items was vast, it was not gratuitously so; some of the most important disclosures came precisely from sifting through the large number of items. Certainly, some of the important revelations from the leaks could have been achieved through a single "smoking gun" document, such as the chilling operational video from a U.S. helicopter attack that killed two Reuters' cameramen, and shot at a van trying to offer relief to the injured, wounding two children who were in the van . But many of the most important insights only arise from careful analysis of the small pieces of evidence. This type of accountability analysis showed that the military had substantially understated the scale of civilian casualties in Iraq ; and that U.S. forces were silently complicit in abuses by allied Iraqi government forces ; it uncovered repeated abuses by civilian contractors to the military. The war logs have become the most important spin-free source of historical evidence about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The reputation that WikiLeaks has been given by most media outlets over the past two and a half years, though, obscures much of this---it just /feels/ less like "the press" than the /New York Times/. This is actually the point on which I am expected to testify at the trial, based on research I did over the months following the first WikiLeaks disclosure in April 2010. When you read the hundreds of news stories and other materials published about WikiLeaks before early 2010, what you see is a young, exciting new media organization. The darker stories about Julian Assange and the dangers that the site poses developed only in the latter half of 2010, as the steady release of leaks about the U.S. triggered ever-more hyperbolic denouncements from the Administration (such as Joe Biden's calling Assange a "high-tech terrorist"), and as relations between Assange and his traditional media partners soured. In early 2010, when Manning did his leaking, none of that had happened yet. WikiLeaks was still a new media phenom, an outfit originally known for releasing things like a Somali rebel leader's decision to assassinate government officials in Somalia, or a major story exposing corruption in the government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. Over the years WikiLeaks also exposed documents that shined a light on U.S. government practices, such as operating procedures in Camp Delta in Guantanamo or a draft of a secretly negotiated, highly controversial trade treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. But that was not the primary focus. To name but a few examples, it published documents that sought to expose a Swiss Bank's use of Cayman accounts to help rich clients avoid paying taxes, oil related corruption in Peru, banking abuses in Iceland, pharmaceutical company influence peddling at the World Health Organization, and extra-judicial killings in Kenya. For its work, WikiLeaks won Amnesty International's New Media award in 2009 and the Freedom of Expression Award from the British magazine, /Index of Censorship/, in 2008. No one would have thought at the time that WikiLeaks had the gravitas of the /Times/. But if you roll back to the relevant time frame, it is clear that any reasonable person would have seen WikiLeaks as being in the same universe as we today think of the range of new media organizations in the networked investigative journalism ecosystem, closer probably to /ProPublica/ or the /Bureau of Investigative Journalism/ than to /Huffington Post /or /the Daily Beast/.*If leaking classified materials to a public media outlet can lead to prosecution for aiding the enemy, then it has to be under a rule that judges can apply evenhandedly to the **/New York Times /**or the **/Guardian /**no less than to **/ProPublica, the Daily Beast/**, or WikiLeaks**/. /**No court will welcome a rule where culpability for a capital offense like aiding the enemy depends on the judge's evaluation of the quality of the editorial practices, good faith, or loyalty of the media organization to which the information was leaked. Nor could a court develop such a rule without severely impinging on the freedom of the press. The implications of Manning's case go well beyond Wikileaks, to the very heart of accountability journalism in a networked age.* The prosecution will likely not accept Manning's guilty plea to lesser offenses as the final word. When the case goes to trial in June, they will try to prove that Manning is guilty of a raft of more serious offenses. Most aggressive and novel among these harsher offenses is the charge that by giving classified materials to WikiLeaks Manning was guilty of "aiding the enemy." That's when the judge will have to decide whether handing over classified materials to /ProPublica /or the /New York Times,/ knowing that Al Qaeda can read these news outlets online, is indeed enough to constitute the capital offense of "aiding the enemy." Aiding the enemy is a broad and vague offense. In the past, it was used in hard-core cases where somebody handed over information about troop movements directly to someone the collaborator believed to be "the enemy," to American POWs collaborating with North Korean captors, or to a German American citizen who was part of a German sabotage team during WWII. But the language of the statute is broad. It prohibits not only actually aiding the enemy, giving intelligence, or protecting the enemy, but also the broader crime of communicating---/directly or indirectly---/with the enemy without authorization. That's the prosecution's theory here: Manning knew that the materials would be made public, and he knew that Al Qaeda or its affiliates could read the publications in which the materials would be published. Therefore, the prosecution argues, by giving the materials to WikiLeaks, Manning was "indirectly" communicating with the enemy. *Under this theory, there is no need to show that the defendant wanted or intended to aid the enemy.* The prosecution must show only that he communicated the potentially harmful information, knowing that the enemy could read the publications to which he leaked the materials. This would be true whether Al Qaeda searched the WikiLeaks database or the /New York Times'./ Hence the prosecutor's "Yes Ma'am." *This theory is unprecedented in modern American history. *The prosecution claims that there is, in fact precedent in Civil War cases, including one from 1863 where a Union officer gave a newspaper in occupied Alexandria rosters of Union units, and was convicted of aiding the enemy and sentenced to three months. But Manning's defense argues that the Civil War cases involved publishing coded messages in newspapers and personals, not leaking for reporting to the public at large. The other major source that the prosecution uses is a 1920 military law treatise. Even if the prosecutors are correct in their interpretations of these two sources, which is far from obvious, the fact that they need to rely on these old and obscure sources underscores how extreme their position is in the twenty-first century. In fact, neither side disagrees with this central critique:*That for 150 years, well before the rise of the modern First Amendment, the invention of muckraking journalism, or the modern development of the watchdog function of the press in democratic society, no one has been charged with aiding the enemy simply for leaking information to the press for general publication. *Perhaps it was possible to bring such a charge before the first amendment developed as it did in the past hundred years, before the Pentagon Papers story had entered our national legend. But before Rosa Parks and /Brown vs. Board of Education/ there was also a time when prosecutors could enforce the segregation laws of Jim Crow. Those times have passed. *Read in the context of American constitutional history and the practice of at least a century and a half (if not more) of "aiding the enemy" prosecutions, we should hope and expect that the court will in fact reject the prosecution's novel and aggressive interpretation of that crime.* *But as long as the charge remains live and the case undecided, the risk that a court will accept this expansive and destructive interpretation is very real.* *That's especially true when you consider that "aiding the enemy" could be applied to civilians. Most provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply only to military personnel. But Section 104, the "aiding the enemy" section, applies simply to "any person." To some extent, this makes sense*---a German-American civilian in WWII could be tried by military commission for aiding German saboteurs under this provision. There has been some back and forth in military legal handbooks, cases, and commentary about whether and to what extent Section 104 in fact applies to civilians. Most recently, Justice Stevens' opinion in the Supreme Court case of /Hamdan/ implies that Section 104 may in fact apply to civilians and be tried by military commissions. But this is not completely settled. *Because the authorities are unclear, any competent lawyer today would have to tell a prospective civilian whistleblower that she may well be prosecuted for the capital offense of aiding the enemy just for leaking to the press.* The past few years have seen a lot of attention to the Obama Administration's war on whistleblowing . In the first move, the Administration revived the World War I Espionage Act, an Act whose infamous origins included a 10-year prison term for a movie director who made a movie that showed British soldiers killing women and children during the Revolutionary War and was therefore thought to undermine our wartime alliance with Britain, and was used to jail Eugene V. Debs and other political activists . Barack Obama's Department of Justice has brought more Espionage Act prosecutions for leaks to the press than all prior administrations combined since then, using the law as what the /New York Times/ called an "ad hoc Official Secrets Act ." *If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing*. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: *Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?* *What a coup for Al Qaeda, to have maimed our constitutional spirit to the point where we might become that nation.* /Yochai Benkler is a professor at Harvard Law School and co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 3 17:17:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 23:17:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> William Drake wrote: > > On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a > > somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus > > starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to > > leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come > > in. > > Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by > APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support. Since this was not suggested in either APC's written contribution nor in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was proposed by APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a MAG-internal process". So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of not choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have come in, but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make written contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is being explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main theme and sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open consultations ??? Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the choice of main theme should be left often until after the workshop proposals have been received". In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I raised, this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one that should not be simply glossed over. > > In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of > > integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these > > consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting > > support from anyone else. > > Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of robust > participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including > your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in the > wilderness for integrity? > > Just wondering, The relatively major integrity related points that I raised were: (1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but it did not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting (that is the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity"). (2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC. (3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from the 'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and I would very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being very much a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical policy impact." (4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet Improvements which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if such outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF, then that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main sessions so that what will be written in the outcome document will have actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in the sense of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome"). If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if any other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity oriented comments, I have missed those comments. Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that there was so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far as I noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation to the need to having integrity in the process that produces the outcome documents. I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went wrong in the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it should have been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to making sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents will have integrity. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 3 22:05:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:35:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51340F62.7080001@itforchange.net> Also important in this regard is that the UN Secretary General is expected to give a call for beginning to prepare for the next IGF before MAG meets in May, and this call has always (as far as I remember) included the overall theme of the next IGF. Which means that perhaps UN SG will simply pick up the theme suggested by the host country or something like that; whereby the MAG, and through it the larger community, may have effectively excluded itself from this very important part of IGF preparation and program. Pl correct me if I am wrong. .. parminder On Monday 04 March 2013 03:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > William Drake wrote: > >>> On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a >>> somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus >>> starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to >>> leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come >>> in. >> Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by >> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support. > Since this was not suggested in either APC's written contribution nor > in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was proposed by > APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a MAG-internal > process". > > So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of not > choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have come in, > but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make written > contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is being > explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main theme and > sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open > consultations ??? > > Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the choice > of main theme should be left often until after the workshop proposals > have been received". > > In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I raised, > this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one that > should not be simply glossed over. > >>> In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of >>> integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these >>> consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting >>> support from anyone else. >> Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of robust >> participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including >> your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in the >> wilderness for integrity? >> >> Just wondering, > The relatively major integrity related points that I raised were: > > (1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but it did > not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting (that is > the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity"). > > (2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet > Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC. > > (3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at > the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and > it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more > outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from the > 'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and I would > very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages > this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being very much > a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical > policy impact." > > (4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet Improvements > which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if such > outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF, then > that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main sessions > so that what will be written in the outcome document will have > actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the > transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in the sense > of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the > structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes > of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the > community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome"). > > If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if any > other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity oriented > comments, I have missed those comments. > > Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that there was > so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far as I > noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation to > the need to having integrity in the process that produces the outcome > documents. > > I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went wrong in > the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it should have > been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to making > sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents will have > integrity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sun Mar 3 22:20:33 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 22:20:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: How to disentangle both? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively > blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they > conflict with ideology. > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ** wrote: > > On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global > public interest, more like? > > Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I > doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is > labelled as left/South. > Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking > or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of > being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an > open and free Internet. > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no > connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other > fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few > exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a > criterion that some seek. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like > the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that > Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse > jurisdictional treatment etc. > > From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to > she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, > Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the > frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. > > Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition > to a considerable extent. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> > > Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet > Governance thematic area. See page 7: > > "*23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)* > *Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.* > • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of > holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise > nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and > whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed > by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are > concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, > and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent > such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market > oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the > perceived unbalanced." > > Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information > Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's > Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from > Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. > > For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily > be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The > criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. > > The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being > mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of > course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are > widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. > > There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the > Internet and here are just three: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html > https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ > > > >> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: >> >> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. >> > >> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 3 22:43:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:13:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > How to disentangle both? > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? >>>> >>>> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. >>>>> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) >>>>>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. >>>>>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership >>>>>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Mar 3 22:57:11 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 03:57:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> ,<43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8576@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> So...practitioners demonizing theorists is ok, but not vice versa? Got it. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:43 PM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; riaz.tayob at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: How to disentangle both? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. --srs (htc one x) On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. >From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? --srs (iPad) Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 3 23:03:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:33:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8576@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> ,<43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8576@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <13d3391697a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> What goes around sometimes comes right back around. Regrettable to be sure. --srs (htc one x) On 4 March 2013 9:27:11 AM Lee W McKnight wrote: > So...practitioners demonizing theorists is ok, but not vice versa? > > Got it. > ________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh > Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:43 PM > To: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; > riaz.tayob at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate > the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology > International > > There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not > using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you > disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can > agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not > demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. > > The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in > practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much > more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly > ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > wrote: > > How to disentangle both? > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively > blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if > they conflict with ideology. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global > public interest, more like? > > Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. > And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > wrote: > > It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest > is labelled as left/South. > Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop > speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is > a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we > hold dear, an open and free Internet. > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no > connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of > other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a > few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if > that's a criterion that some seek. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > wrote: > > In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something > like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the > way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, > diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. > > From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society > to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market > behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the > frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. > > Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov > definition to a considerable extent. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? > > --srs (iPad) > > Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet > Governance thematic area. See page 7: > > "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) > Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. > • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights > of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the > precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all > stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address > the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual > property rights holders are concerned about the high number of > infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed > to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the > other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the > impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." > > Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information > Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's > Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming > from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. > > For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as > easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the > line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on > software etc. > > The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from > being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne > Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal > instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. > > There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the > Internet and here are just three: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html > https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ > > > > On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, > riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > > > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > > > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 3 23:22:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:52:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <13d3391697a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8576@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <13d3391697a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Just to clarify, using marxist rhetoric based ephitets that originally described slumlords and absentee rackrenters to describe your opponents is something that does tend to invite a strong (or stronger than intended) reaction when someone understands the reference and its context. I would experience much the same reaction, for example, if I referred to someone from a racial or ethnic group by a name that they find offensive. And yes, words change in meaning over time, but I can't see that the original intent of that ephitet has changed much, judging by whatever discourse I can find online about rentier capitalism. The difference - which I do regret with myself - has been that I tend to resent these enough to be vocal about these, and in the process, expose myself to much the same kind of criticism [not to mention complaints to the list admin that I am using such words, which takes me right back to the days of kindergarten and "teacher! he called me a bad name!"] --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 9:33, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What goes around sometimes comes right back around. Regrettable to be sure. > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 4 March 2013 9:27:11 AM Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> So...practitioners demonizing theorists is ok, but not vice versa? >> >> Got it. >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:43 PM >> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; riaz.tayob at gmail.com >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International >> >> There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. >> >> The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >>> How to disentangle both? >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. >>>>>>> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) >>>>>>>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. >>>>>>>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Diego R. Canabarro >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >>> >>> -- >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >>> Skype: diegocanabarro >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >>> -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 01:51:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:51:24 -0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> rentier French [rɑ̃tje] n a. a person whose income consists primarily of fixed unearned amounts, such as rent or bond interest http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rentiers "Perjorative"? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:44 AM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; riaz.tayob at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: How to disentangle both? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. --srs (htc one x) On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. >From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? --srs (iPad) Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 02:19:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:49:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13d3444ec05.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Look up rentier capitalism. Then look up, for example, how words assume meaning based on context, such as 'boy' applied to a male child versus boy applied to an African American man. thanks --srs (htc one x) On 4 March 2013 12:21:24 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > rentier French [rɑ̃tje] n > > a. a person whose income consists primarily of fixed unearned amounts, > such as rent or bond interest > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rentiers > > > > "Perjorative"? > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:44 AM > To: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; > riaz.tayob at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate > the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology > International > > > > There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not > using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you > disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can > agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not > demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. > > > > The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in > practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much > more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly > ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > How to disentangle both? > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively > blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if > they conflict with ideology. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global > public interest, more like? > > > > Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. > And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest > is labelled as left/South. > > Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop > speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is > a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we > hold dear, an open and free Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no > connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of > other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a > few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if > that's a criterion that some seek. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something > like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the > way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, > diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. > > > > From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society > to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market > behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the > frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. > > > > Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov > definition to a considerable extent. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? > > --srs (iPad) > > > Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet > Governance thematic area. See page 7: > > "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) > Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. > • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights > of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the > precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all > stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address > the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual > property rights holders are concerned about the high number of > infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed > to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the > other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the > impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." > > Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information > Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's > Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming > from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. > > For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as > easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the > line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on > software etc. > > The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from > being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne > Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal > instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. > > There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the > Internet and here are just three: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html > https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ > > > > > On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > > > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > > > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 02:45:28 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:45:28 -0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <13d3444ec05.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> <13d3444ec05.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <090801ce18ac$46813f00$d383bd00$@gmail.com> Suresh, the term is I believe a more or less "technical" one which refers to those who extract rents from the ownership of various types of property. Such a term could (and is) used within the context of a variety of analytical approaches although perhaps more often among those who see such relationships as "negative"--those who see such relationships as "positive" are likely to use other terms--e.g. "investor", "job creator" etc.etc. Hard to see the point you are making here. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:20 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Diego Rafael Canabarro' Cc: 'Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro'; riaz.tayob at gmail.com Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International Look up rentier capitalism. Then look up, for example, how words assume meaning based on context, such as 'boy' applied to a male child versus boy applied to an African American man. thanks --srs (htc one x) On 4 March 2013 12:21:24 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: rentier French [rɑ̃tje] n a. a person whose income consists primarily of fixed unearned amounts, such as rent or bond interest http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rentiers "Perjorative"? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:44 AM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; riaz.tayob at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: How to disentangle both? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. --srs (htc one x) On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. >From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. --srs (iPad) On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? --srs (iPad) Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 02:56:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 13:26:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International In-Reply-To: <090801ce18ac$46813f00$d383bd00$@gmail.com> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> <13d3444ec05.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <090801ce18ac$46813f00$d383bd00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes. So a rentier state would mean one of those economies that derive most if not all their income from a natural resource like oil, or a geographical location such as where a larger country pays them a huge sum to locate a satellite launch station there. Which resource becomes a government monopoly and engenders a thieving bureaucracy, restricted industry, lack of democracy etc. Like the gulf sheikdoms for example. The rest of the usage of the term is where a government collects high taxes and represses its people causing democracy to suffer and civil society's grow to be retarded in such a country My point is precisely that using this term in a negative context has a long history dating back to the sort of rentier I mentioned, and a historical context of being more often than not used to describe a repressive country with a governance and democracy failure. --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 13:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Suresh, the term is I believe a more or less "technical" one which refers to those who extract rents from the ownership of various types of property. > > Such a term could (and is) used within the context of a variety of analytical approaches although perhaps more often among those who see such relationships as "negative"--those who see such relationships as "positive" are likely to use other terms--e.g. "investor", "job creator" etc.etc. Hard to see the point you are making here. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:20 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Diego Rafael Canabarro' > Cc: 'Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro'; riaz.tayob at gmail.com > Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International > > Look up rentier capitalism. > > Then look up, for example, how words assume meaning based on context, such as 'boy' applied to a male child versus boy applied to an African American man. > > thanks > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 4 March 2013 12:21:24 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > > rentier French [rɑ̃tje] n > a. a person whose income consists primarily of fixed unearned amounts, such as rent or bond interest > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rentiers > > "Perjorative"? > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:44 AM > To: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; riaz.tayob at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International > > There are people who bridge the gap effectively. Which involves not using pejorative terms (rentier for instance) to describe those you disagree with. That, and working to find common ground where you can agree to some extent to those whose views differ from yours. So, not demonizing the opposition is definitely a good place to start. > > The other thing I have found is that people who implement anything in practice and have their opinions tempered by that experience are much more reliable sources of knowledge, and more inclined to avoid blindly ideological positions, than theorists, especially those with a political bent. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 04-Mar-2013, at 8:50, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > How to disentangle both? > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if they conflict with ideology. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like? > > Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South. > Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet. > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I dont dispute that. My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc. > > From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft. > > Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed? > > --srs (iPad) > > Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7: > > "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR) > Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace. > • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced." > > Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters. > > For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc. > > The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant. > > There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html > https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ > > > > > On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > > > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes.. > > > >> http://keionline.org/node/1655 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Mar 4 06:12:08 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:12:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <73AF5413-1371-412E-A7C4-F19696D8E983@uzh.ch> Hi Norbert On Mar 3, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > William Drake wrote: > >>> On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a >>> somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus >>> starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to >>> leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come >>> in. >> >> Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by >> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support. > > Since this was not suggested in either APC's written contribution nor > in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was proposed by > APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a MAG-internal > process". Not that I recall. My guess would be that 80-90% of what gets said in open consultations is not written down in formal input docs, so it's not unusual. The model is brainstorming, not treaty negotiations. > > So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of not > choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have come in, > but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make written > contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is being > explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main theme and > sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open > consultations ??? False binary, Anriette made a suggestion in the flow of the discussion and most people who spoke to the point seemed to agree, that's all. FWIW my view was different. I think the EuroDIG does very well with crowd sourcing main themes because they solicit inputs on these, get a lot of replies, and then aggregate them into clusters to talk through. This is rather different from trying to arrive at themes inductively based on 100+ disparate workshop proposals. Since we may end up picking some generic conference theme per usual anyway, I'd have preferred we just got on with it based on ideas already in circulation. So I suggested Freedom of Connection, Freedom of Expression as an overarching with main sessions on principles, enhanced cooperation, human rights, and telecom/Internet convergence. But there was clearly no appetite for focusing on narrowing and deciding yet, so we stuck to free form ideating. > > Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the choice > of main theme should be left often until after the workshop proposals > have been received". Best not to expect such a formalized process and to look at how we've been doing things for eight years. > > In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I raised, > this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one that > should not be simply glossed over. > >>> In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of >>> integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these >>> consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting >>> support from anyone else. >> >> Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of robust >> participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including >> your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in the >> wilderness for integrity? >> >> Just wondering, > > The relatively major integrity related points that I raised were: > > (1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but it did > not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting (that is > the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity"). Sorry, I was reading the above in relation to more standard definitions of the word. Anyway, the overarching theme of the meetings has never matched their substantive content. For example, you may recall that we had several early meetings where the theme was nominally development but there was precious little discussion thereof, a point I subsequently belabored in arguing for the addition of an IG4D main session. So I don't know why you'd feel like this is some new departure from "integrity." > > (2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet > Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC. So because the room didn't rise up as one and say eureka, Norbert has mentioned the perfect theme, you were therefore the only proponent of integrity? > > (3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at > the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and > it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more > outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from the > 'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and I would > very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages > this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being very much > a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical > policy impact." You wanted the open consultation to agree that the IGF is the appropriate venue in which get human rights "done"? If so, you set yourself up for disappointment. > > (4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet Improvements > which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if such > outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF, then > that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main sessions > so that what will be written in the outcome document will have > actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the > transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in the sense > of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the > structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes > of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the > community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome"). Sure > > If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if any > other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity oriented > comments, I have missed those comments. There may be lots of reasons people don't pick up on a comment. For example, if they understand and agree with it, they may feel ok that's been said and concentrate on another concern. Conversely, when you said the caucus supported making "the Internet for kids" a main theme some of us were rather puzzled, but we didn't bother to jump up and disagree. It's probably best not to expect the room to move with one's every utterance, or to decide others don't favor integrity if this doesn't happen. > Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that there was > so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far as I > noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation to > the need to having integrity in the process that produces the outcome > documents. > I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went wrong in > the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it should have > been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to making > sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents will have > integrity. Ok, I'm sorry to hear all this worries you and suspect you have many more worries to come. Best 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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 07:31:44 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:31:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] The 1st Arab IGF Chairman Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks so much for (posting) this report. Do you (anyone) know if there is any report from the Arab States regional meeting in the WCIT process? I can't seem to find any and contacted the focal points to no avail. Best, mawaki On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear Qusai, >> >> Shukriya! The report was very interesting and informative and the Agenda >> looked really interesting. > > > Best Regards, > Sala > >> >> >> >> 2013/3/1 Qusai AlShatti >>> >>> Dear Colleagues: >>> I am forwarding to the governance list the Chairman Report for the 1st >>> Arab IGF held in Kuwait last October 2012 and hosted by Kuwait Information >>> Technology Society. I hope the report will give a background on the Arab IGF >>> as a process and as an event. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Qusai AlShatti >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Michel TCHONANG LINZE >> >> Coordinateur Général >> >> Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile >> (ACSIS) >> >> ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC ! >> >> Forum SMSI du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse >> SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé Cameroun. >> «Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et du phénomène de >> croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile, quelles solutions pour des >> Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des Personnes et des Entreprises >> ? » >> >> CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le >> Développement de l'Afrique) >> >> BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN >> >> Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 >> >> Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr >> >> Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; www.tic-afrique.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Mon Mar 4 08:22:10 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:22:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS Message-ID: Dear governance list colleagues, Since I know some of you also are concerned with public health and IP issues, you may be interested to know that today, CCIA has made a press statement that it endorses the call of LDCs for an indefinite deferral for full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. You can find the press release online here. I believe - please correct me if I am wrong - that we are the first trade association to do this. I hope more follow. There is also an OpEd from me in IP Watch further elaborating on why we have done this available here. My apologies in advance if this does not interest you and/or you see it as off-topic. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 5349945 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email/GTalk IM: nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 08:30:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:00:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5134A206.409@itforchange.net> Congrats Nick, Read it just now on IP Watch and was about to send this message to you when i saw the IGC posting... parminder On Monday 04 March 2013 06:52 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear governance list colleagues, > > Since I know some of you also are concerned with public health and IP > issues, you may be interested to know that today, CCIA has made a > press statement that it endorses the call of LDCs for an indefinite > deferral for full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. You can find > the press release online here > . I > believe - please correct me if I am wrong - that we are the first > trade association to do this. I hope more follow. > > There is also an OpEd from me in IP Watch further elaborating on why > we have done this available here > . > > My apologies in advance if this does not interest you and/or you see > it as off-topic. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22)5349945 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > email/GTalk IM: nashton at ccianet.org > Skype: nashtonhart > http://www.ccianet.org > > Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time > and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 08:38:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130304133825.GG29227@hserus.net> Quite relevant to the extent that WTO obligations were cited as a major factor for several countries to evaluate the ITR based on their existing standing commitments Do you additionally feel that TRIPS has any implication on the issues proposed in the ITRs and that are up for discussion? thanks suresh Nick Ashton-Hart [04/03/13 14:22 +0100]: >Dear governance list colleagues, > >Since I know some of you also are concerned with public health and IP >issues, you may be interested to know that today, CCIA has made a press >statement that it endorses the call of LDCs for an indefinite deferral for >full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. You can find the press >release online here. I believe - please correct me if I am wrong - that we >are the first trade association to do this. I hope more follow. > >There is also an OpEd from me in IP Watch further elaborating on why we >have done this available here. > >My apologies in advance if this does not interest you and/or you see it as >off-topic. > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Geneva Representative >Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >Tel: +41 (22) 5349945 >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >email/GTalk IM: nashton at ccianet.org >Skype: nashtonhart >http://www.ccianet.org > >Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Mar 4 10:40:52 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:40:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris In-Reply-To: <51340F62.7080001@itforchange.net> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> <51340F62.7080001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5134C084.3000002@apc.org> Dear all I have been traveling and am in another meeting (in Mexico City) so have not had time to follow up.Let me try to explain the backgroundto my comments in theMAG meeting. The proposal to finalise the theme based on interest and proposals from the IGF community is not new.Proposals to delay deciding the final theme until after workshop proposals have been received was madeand discussed at the MAG meeting in 2012. It wasalso raised and discussed on the MAG listin February 2013 before we convened in Paris for the MAG meeting. Positions varied, with some people supporting the idea, and others not. Someproposed a combination approach. My proposal was that we start with general policy questions based on OC input and then wait for workshop proposals before finalising the overall 'theme'. My reasons: a) Therecommendation of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements is to build the IGF around policy questions. The idea is that we frame the IGF based on these policy questions identified at thebeginning of the process. This is more or less what we did at last week's MAG meeting. Here is the relevant text from the report: "The IGF Secretariat and the MAG should reach out and continue to invite all stakeholders to be more actively involved in the preparation of the IGF, including by identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main sessions for the IGF will be structured. In order to enhance the bottom-up process and to facilitate the identification of key policy questions, the Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop proposals before the first open consultation." b) Much time is wasted by MAG members trying to synthesise an overall theme and main themes. The format of MAG meetings does not lend itself to finalising themes, or any other kind of 'text editing'. In the process I have seen threedisappointing trends time and time again (I have observed at MAG meetings prior to my appointment last year): (1) the discussion stops focusing on the inputs received from the IGF community (2) new themes are put on the table(3) the decision becomes politicised and even more time is wasted, with the inevitable resolution being to come up with a very vacuous 'contentless' theme. In this process the excellent ideas that came up during the OC, and in written submissions, and during the MAG meeting, is lost. In 2012 1.5 days were spent debating the overall theme. You just have to look at the overall themes to see howgeneral they usually are, and how little real relationship they have with the content of the workshops. As for finalising the 'main themes'. We had some consensus themes, but they were being diffused as the discussion was continuing and people tried to 'tidy' them up by combining them.The secretariat was battling to make accurate notes of the inputs.If we had broken into smaller groups we probably could have come up with the policy questions around which we can build main themes, but we did not, and I felt that keeping the full list receivedfrom the IGF community was a better option than continuing to find final agreement. c) In general I feel that the primary role of the MAG is to process inputs from the IGF community. Synthesising an overall theme based on actual workshop proposals is quite a good way of doing this in my view. And it is easier for a MAG discussion, or a political debateto be grounded byworkshop proposals than inputs made during an OC process. I had also suggested that workshop proposers should be asked what policy questions they are addressing. As for the outcome of the MAG meeting on 1 March.The report is not terribly detailed, and I think MAG membersshould help the secretariat to clarify next steps. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the 'key-words'listed below will be used in the call for workshop proposals. Your point about the SG's call is taken Parminder. I think we should clarifythe list in the MAG report (copied below), and try to get as close to a few core policy questions as we can prior to the call going out. I think having this list is better than having an overall theme (and we were heading that way) which is so general that it saysnothing at all. I do think we can come up with good main theme questions quite easily.There was strong support for 'internet governance principles','human rights' and 'cooperation- multi-stakeholder processes etc.'. This is quite an odd mix of issues.. and does needclustering. -Science and Technology (In Internet) for Development -Human Rights -Internet Principles -Enhanced Cooperation -Multi-stakeholder Principles an Practices -Internet as an Engine for Growth and Advancement -Enhancing Multi-stakeholder collaboration for growth, development and human rights. (Social and Economic Growth) -Spam -Cyber-security - Internet Cooperation - Building Bridges - Enhanced Cooperation - Transforming Internet to Equinet - How to achieve an equal multi-stakeholder model - Youth (internet for kids, child safety, etc.) - Cooperation for growth, development, and human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. - Internet Exchange Points - Cyber-crime - Public Access I hope this helps clarify my inputs during the meeting. I will respond to Norbert's 'integrity' points in another message. Best regards Anriette On 04/03/2013 05:05, parminder wrote: > > Also important in this regard is that the UN Secretary General is > expected to give a call for beginning to prepare for the next IGF > before MAG meets in May, and this call has always (as far as I > remember) included the overall theme of the next IGF. Which means > that perhaps UN SG will simply pick up the theme suggested by the host > country or something like that; whereby the MAG, and through it the > larger community, may have effectively excluded itself from this very > important part of IGF preparation and program. Pl correct me if I am > wrong. > .. parminder > > > On Monday 04 March 2013 03:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> William Drake wrote: >> >>>> On the topic of choosing the overall theme for the Bali IGF, a >>>> somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of Markus >>>> starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or not to >>>> leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals have come >>>> in. >>> Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed by >>> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support. >> Since this was not suggested in either APC's written contribution nor >> in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was proposed by >> APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a MAG-internal >> process". >> >> So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of not >> choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have come in, >> but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make written >> contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is being >> explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main theme and >> sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open >> consultations ??? >> >> Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the choice >> of main theme should be left often until after the workshop proposals >> have been received". >> >> In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I raised, >> this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one that >> should not be simply glossed over. >> >>>> In trying to put in this way a bit of emphasis on aspects of >>>> integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these >>>> consultations, points on the need for integrity were not getting >>>> support from anyone else. >>> Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of robust >>> participation by many people who I believe favor integrity, including >>> your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in the >>> wilderness for integrity? >>> >>> Just wondering, >> The relatively major integrity related points that I raised were: >> >> (1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but it did >> not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting (that is >> the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity"). >> >> (2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet >> Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC. >> >> (3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at >> the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human rights, and >> it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more >> outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from the >> 'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and I would >> very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically encourages >> this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being very much >> a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical >> policy impact." >> >> (4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet Improvements >> which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if such >> outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF, then >> that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main sessions >> so that what will be written in the outcome document will have >> actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the >> transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in the sense >> of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the >> structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes >> of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the >> community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome"). >> >> If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if any >> other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity oriented >> comments, I have missed those comments. >> >> Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that there was >> so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far as I >> noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation to >> the need to having integrity in the process that produces the outcome >> documents. >> >> I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went wrong in >> the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it should have >> been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to making >> sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents will have >> integrity. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Mar 4 12:04:09 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:04:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Message-ID: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> Dear folks, this may or may not pertain to any current thread of "dialogue", but is nonetheless quite interesting, and perhaps revealing of the nature of the gTLD business. Journalist Dominique Lacroix (Le Monde) has put together some statistics regarding the economic interests behind the gTLD craze unleashed by ICANN: - 393 US applications are by US companies' branches based in European tax heavens (including 76 bids by Amazon Luxemburg); - the total of gTLD applications by US companies' branches based in tax heavens is 891; just 390 applications are formally from US-based companies' headquarters; - in summary, 47% of all gTLD applications are operations by US companies' branches based in tax heavens; - of the total 1930 bids, 1455 (75,4%) will be run by one of seven US backend operators. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 12:46:50 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:46:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: Dear All, The following persons are selected for by the nomcom for recomendation to the CSTD. Norbort Bollow Avri Doria Parminder Jeet Singh Wolfgang Kleinwachter Jeremy Malcolm Congrats to you all. Please note that in order for the proper information to reach Anriette, we need the following information immediately. Once received I will send all documentation to Anriette. If the profile you sent already contains all the info then please state and I will send as is. Thanks to all the Nomcom team for their sterling work on this. Regards! Devon Please include: 1. Your name, email and contact number 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity please provide information on the selection process. 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your job title) 3. Your country of residence 4. Your nationality and your gender Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD chair in making the final selection: 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have a lot to contribute)? 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general? 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Sarah Kiden wrote: > Devon, > > Does that mean that we have to score again (especially for the optional > criteria)? > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Devon Blake wrote: > >> Dear all >> Attached please see my tally on your selections to the CSTD, There are >> however some issues. As you will notice there is a tie between two of the >> Candidates, Avri and William and only one more needs to be selected. Also >> in reviewing your scores I note that apart from Sarah everyone scored the >> optional criteria out of 10 instead of five as agreed. Time is short and it >> is critical that we announce the successful candidates immediately, could >> you all please look at your scoring and find a way to break the tie between >> Avri and William? thanks. This is urgent. >> Regards, >> Devon >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Devon and Members of the NomCom, >>> >>> Best wishes in your deliberations as you undertake what is one of the >>> most important tasks for the IGC this year. >>> >>> I wish you well in your work. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Sala, >>>> I will do my best to see the process completed. >>>> Devon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> snaalanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Devon, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for stepping up. This is a difficult time as you can >>>>> imagine. Ginger will also be available to provide language translation >>>>> assistance should it be necessary and your past experiences in past NomComs >>>>> will certainly be useful. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sala/Nomcom members, >>>>>> In order to facilitate the smooth running of this selection process >>>>>> and to ensure the process is constitutionally correct, I will forgo my >>>>>> voting privileges to chair the Nomcom committee, provided of course that >>>>>> Tracey keeps her promise and assist. >>>>>> Devon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tracey Naughton < >>>>>> tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Nomcom Members and Sala, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greetings from burning hot Melbourne. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have just gone through my emails and identified the candidates >>>>>>> listed below. Have I missed anyone? >>>>>>> I think we have 8 candidates. >>>>>>> I sent each of these people a note confirming receipt of their >>>>>>> nomination. The note said: >>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Dear ....., >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you may know the Chair of the Nomcom had to recuse himself and we >>>>>>> don't have a replacement to date. >>>>>>> As a courtesy, and as a member of the Nomcom, I am just letting you >>>>>>> know that your nomination has been received. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *We have nominations from:* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William Drake >>>>>>> Norbert Bollow >>>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>>> Avri Doria >>>>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>>>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>>>>>> John B. Kavuma >>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am *attaching the spreadsheet *I drafted earlier and we agreed to >>>>>>> use in order to select five candidates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In doing this, I am not accepting the role of Chair. I would like to >>>>>>> retain my vote. I am just hoping to make up some lost time and keep us >>>>>>> moving forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Does anyone on the Nomcom want to take over as non-voting Chair?*This would involve: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - encouraging all Nomcom members to go through the applications and >>>>>>> complete the spreadsheet, then email it to the Chair >>>>>>> - counting all the spreadsheet results >>>>>>> - facilitating any discussions if there is a hung result >>>>>>> - reporting to the co-ordinators and IGF list on the process and >>>>>>> outcomes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm prepared to help with that work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tracey >>>>>>> __________________ >>>>>>> Tracey Naughton >>>>>>> (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, >>>>>>> Geneva and Tunis) >>>>>>> Communication for Development Consultant >>>>>>> Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - >>>>>>> Extractive Sector >>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>> based in Victoria, Australia >>>>>>> land line: +613 54706853 >>>>>>> mobile: +61 413 019 707 >>>>>>> skype: tnaughton9999 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Members of NomCom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Warm Greetings! This is to advise that Deirdre will not be chairing >>>>>>> the NomCom. Since Guru has stepped down, I have asked Jeremy to remove Guru >>>>>>> from the mailing list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Deirdre will NOT be the NomCom Independent Non-Voting Chair and as >>>>>>> such we still do not have an Independent Non Voting Chair. I would like the >>>>>>> NomCom to discuss amongst yourselves and advise who would be willing to >>>>>>> forfeit their voting capacity and lead the NomCom to finalising the process >>>>>>> of selecting the candidates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As such I will ask Jeremy not to add Deirdre to the NomCom mailing >>>>>>> list and to at the same time remove Guru from the mailing list. Since >>>>>>> Norbert is applying for selection, he can no longer receive any >>>>>>> communications from you nor I on NomCom matters. He is to be treated like >>>>>>> any ordinary candidate that comes through for your review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Devon Blake >>>>>> Special Projects Director >>>>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>>>> Kgn 5 >>>>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>>>> >>>>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Devon Blake >>>> Special Projects Director >>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>> Kgn 5 >>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>> >>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Devon Blake >> Special Projects Director >> Earthwise Solutions Limited >> 29 Dominica Drive >> Kgn 5 >> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >> >> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >> > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 11:17:57 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:17:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? Message-ID: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? Posted on March 4, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent We reported last year: The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this , this , this and this . As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes : This administration ... publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. *The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent **just like China and Russia **.* We noted last month that the "cyber-security" laws have /very little/ to do with security . The Verge reported last month: In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweeping executive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected "cyber threats" with private companies that oversee the nation's "critical infrastructure." The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12. *** "Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace," wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to /The Verge/. "Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,*theft of intellectual property*, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware." *** "The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002," Hayden wrote. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF) , passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation's defenses, including "critical infrastructure" as part of its definition of "terrorism." As the act states: "The term 'terrorism' means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources..." But again, that act doesn't exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered "critical," instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill , also passed in response to September 11, which reads: "The term "critical infrastructure" means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president's cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation , are worried that the definition is too broad and "could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture." In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industries in its own label of "critical infrastructure," from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There's an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term "critical" is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so. It's not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses ... and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices , labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy . This entry was posted in Business / Economics , Politics / World News . Bookmark the permalink . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 11:49:55 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:49:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com> Great stuff... On 2013/03/04 03:22 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear governance list colleagues, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 14:31:43 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:31:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <5134F69F.6080800@apc.org> Thanks Devon! For everyone's information, I have convened a small selection group to help me to come up with the final shortlist. I have also received, at last count, 12 nominations. The chair of the CSTD has asked me to compile a list of 6 names- 3 from developed countries and 3 from developed countries. I will keep you all updated. Anriette On 04/03/2013 19:46, Devon Blake wrote: > Dear All, > The following persons are selected for by the nomcom for recomendation to > the CSTD. > Norbort Bollow > Avri Doria > Parminder Jeet Singh > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Jeremy Malcolm > > Congrats to you all. Please note that in order for the proper information > to reach Anriette, we need the following information immediately. Once > received I will send all documentation to Anriette. If the profile you sent > already contains all the info then please state and I will send as is. > > Thanks to all the Nomcom team for their sterling work on this. > > Regards! > > > Devon > > > Please include: > 1. Your name, email and contact number > 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are > affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity > please provide information on the selection process. > 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your > job title) > 3. Your country of residence > 4. Your nationality and your gender > > Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD > chair in making the final selection: > > 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented > policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also > between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that > people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have > a lot to contribute)? > > 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in > the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general? > > 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings > and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva. > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Sarah Kiden wrote: > >> Devon, >> >> Does that mean that we have to score again (especially for the optional >> criteria)? >> >> Sarah >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> Attached please see my tally on your selections to the CSTD, There are >>> however some issues. As you will notice there is a tie between two of the >>> Candidates, Avri and William and only one more needs to be selected. Also >>> in reviewing your scores I note that apart from Sarah everyone scored the >>> optional criteria out of 10 instead of five as agreed. Time is short and it >>> is critical that we announce the successful candidates immediately, could >>> you all please look at your scoring and find a way to break the tie between >>> Avri and William? thanks. This is urgent. >>> Regards, >>> Devon >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Devon and Members of the NomCom, >>>> >>>> Best wishes in your deliberations as you undertake what is one of the >>>> most important tasks for the IGC this year. >>>> >>>> I wish you well in your work. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Sala, >>>>> I will do my best to see the process completed. >>>>> Devon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>> snaalanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dear Devon, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for stepping up. This is a difficult time as you can >>>>>> imagine. Ginger will also be available to provide language translation >>>>>> assistance should it be necessary and your past experiences in past NomComs >>>>>> will certainly be useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Sala/Nomcom members, >>>>>>> In order to facilitate the smooth running of this selection process >>>>>>> and to ensure the process is constitutionally correct, I will forgo my >>>>>>> voting privileges to chair the Nomcom committee, provided of course that >>>>>>> Tracey keeps her promise and assist. >>>>>>> Devon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tracey Naughton < >>>>>>> tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Nomcom Members and Sala, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greetings from burning hot Melbourne. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have just gone through my emails and identified the candidates >>>>>>>> listed below. Have I missed anyone? >>>>>>>> I think we have 8 candidates. >>>>>>>> I sent each of these people a note confirming receipt of their >>>>>>>> nomination. The note said: >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Dear ....., >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you may know the Chair of the Nomcom had to recuse himself and we >>>>>>>> don't have a replacement to date. >>>>>>>> As a courtesy, and as a member of the Nomcom, I am just letting you >>>>>>>> know that your nomination has been received. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *We have nominations from:* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> William Drake >>>>>>>> Norbert Bollow >>>>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>>>> Avri Doria >>>>>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>>>>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>>>>>>> John B. Kavuma >>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am *attaching the spreadsheet *I drafted earlier and we agreed to >>>>>>>> use in order to select five candidates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In doing this, I am not accepting the role of Chair. I would like to >>>>>>>> retain my vote. I am just hoping to make up some lost time and keep us >>>>>>>> moving forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Does anyone on the Nomcom want to take over as non-voting Chair?*This would involve: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - encouraging all Nomcom members to go through the applications and >>>>>>>> complete the spreadsheet, then email it to the Chair >>>>>>>> - counting all the spreadsheet results >>>>>>>> - facilitating any discussions if there is a hung result >>>>>>>> - reporting to the co-ordinators and IGF list on the process and >>>>>>>> outcomes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm prepared to help with that work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tracey >>>>>>>> __________________ >>>>>>>> Tracey Naughton >>>>>>>> (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, >>>>>>>> Geneva and Tunis) >>>>>>>> Communication for Development Consultant >>>>>>>> Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - >>>>>>>> Extractive Sector >>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>> based in Victoria, Australia >>>>>>>> land line: +613 54706853 >>>>>>>> mobile: +61 413 019 707 >>>>>>>> skype: tnaughton9999 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Members of NomCom, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Warm Greetings! This is to advise that Deirdre will not be chairing >>>>>>>> the NomCom. Since Guru has stepped down, I have asked Jeremy to remove Guru >>>>>>>> from the mailing list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Deirdre will NOT be the NomCom Independent Non-Voting Chair and as >>>>>>>> such we still do not have an Independent Non Voting Chair. I would like the >>>>>>>> NomCom to discuss amongst yourselves and advise who would be willing to >>>>>>>> forfeit their voting capacity and lead the NomCom to finalising the process >>>>>>>> of selecting the candidates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As such I will ask Jeremy not to add Deirdre to the NomCom mailing >>>>>>>> list and to at the same time remove Guru from the mailing list. Since >>>>>>>> Norbert is applying for selection, he can no longer receive any >>>>>>>> communications from you nor I on NomCom matters. He is to be treated like >>>>>>>> any ordinary candidate that comes through for your review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Devon Blake >>>>>>> Special Projects Director >>>>>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>>>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>>>>> Kgn 5 >>>>>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>>>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>> Suva >>>>>> Fiji >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Devon Blake >>>>> Special Projects Director >>>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>>> Kgn 5 >>>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>>> >>>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Devon Blake >>> Special Projects Director >>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>> 29 Dominica Drive >>> Kgn 5 >>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>> >>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Mon Mar 4 14:45:13 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:45:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Africa Child Online Protection (ACOP) Summit Africa 2013 Message-ID: Dear all, I'm happy to communicate the information about an important event that will take place in June of this year. The Africa Child Online Protection (ACOP) Summit will be held in Uganda from 4-6 June 2013. Attended by invitation only and with a strong emphasis on shared responsibility for our children, networking and facilitated meetings, the ACOP summit will go beyond discussion to drive tangible outcomes. This ground-breaking summit will raise awareness of Child Online Protection issues and challenges, resources and best practices and contextualize to the African continent. Together we will make valuable connections, share ideas and develop a pan-African network of key stakeholders dedicated to the development of Child Online Protection across Africa and develop an ACOP Charter of values to which governments and private entities subscribe. The ACOP summit will bring together over 200 delegates including Policy Makers, Regulators, Law Enforcement Agencies, Internet Service Providers, Fixed and Mobile Network Operators, NGOs and Government Agencies. Find attached the draft programme. Please have a look on it and attend as delegate. Moreover, there is a range of sponsorship opportunities, exhibition stands and sponsored meeting tables should you wish a greater opportunity to demonstrate your support and solutions for Child Online Protection. To register as a delegate, please follow this link http://acop.eventbrite.co.uk/ For enquiries regarding sponsorship, exhibiting or hosting sponsored meeting tables, please contact Adrian Hall, Extensia +44 (0)7876 351005 ah at extensia-ltd.com I hope this information will be useful and you will be able to attend, With best regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime International -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ACOP Prog 6.2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 214541 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ACOP sponsor 7.2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 141225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 4 14:48:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:48:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Maybe no IGF overall theme? (was Re: Report from the IGF Open Consultations in Paris) In-Reply-To: <5134C084.3000002@apc.org> References: <20130301173252.4f9b83f2@quill.bollow.ch> <5CBCBF30-B2DE-4D72-AE97-7A106970D74D@uzh.ch> <20130303231753.056675ab@quill.bollow.ch> <51340F62.7080001@itforchange.net> <5134C084.3000002@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130304204850.3bf57d2f@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > You just have to look at the overall themes to see how general they > usually are, and how little real relationship they have with the > content of the workshops. [..] > Nevertheless, my understanding is that the 'key-words' listed below > will be used in the call for workshop proposals. Your point about the > SG's call is taken Parminder. I think we should clarify the list in > the MAG report (copied below), and try to get as close to a few core > policy questions as we can prior to the call going out. I think > having this list is better than having an overall theme (and we were > heading that way) which is so general that it says nothing at all. I > do think we can come up with good main theme questions quite > easily. I would support the idea to discontinue the practice of having an IGF "overall theme". If, as Anriette writes, guidance is provided to workshop proposers by means of a list of policy questions included in the call for workshop proposals, that certainly provides a better solution to what the "overall theme" (in my understanding at least) was supposed to achieve, but didn't really. With regard to potentially having an overall theme which is so general that it says nothing at all, I think there is a problem with that approach beyond the time that is wasted on wordsmithing it: When a string of words that carries no intentional substantive meaning is communicated in a manner that gives it prominence, I'd expect it to be somehow interpreted in a way that attaches some unintended meaning to it. Different people would interpret it differently, some of them interpreting it in a way that from their perspective is offensive. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 16:02:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:02:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear folks, this may or may not pertain to any current thread of > "dialogue", but is nonetheless quite interesting, and perhaps revealing of > the nature of the gTLD business. > > Journalist Dominique Lacroix (Le Monde) has put together some statistics > regarding the economic interests behind the gTLD craze unleashed by ICANN: > This is interesting Carlos and Dominique. Do you have the URL to the piece that Dominique wrote? > > - 393 US applications are by US companies' branches based in European tax > heavens (including 76 bids by Amazon Luxemburg); > > - the total of gTLD applications by US companies' branches based in tax > heavens is 891; just 390 applications are formally from US-based companies' > headquarters; > > - in summary, 47% of all gTLD applications are operations by US companies' > branches based in tax heavens; > > - of the total 1930 bids, 1455 (75,4%) will be run by one of seven US > backend operators. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Mar 4 16:16:34 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:16:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> Dear Sala, Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some friends in Paris, during the WSIS. The demonstration is clear. Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few days. I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 members of ICANN board/GNSO. You will find the verbatims in my articles. Warm regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 04/03/13 22:02, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit : > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > Dear folks, this may or may not pertain to any current thread of > "dialogue", but is nonetheless quite interesting, and perhaps > revealing of the nature of the gTLD business. > > Journalist Dominique Lacroix (Le Monde) has put together some > statistics regarding the economic interests behind the gTLD craze > unleashed by ICANN: > > > This is interesting Carlos and Dominique. Do you have the URL to the > piece that Dominique wrote? > > > - 393 US applications are by US companies' branches based in > European tax heavens (including 76 bids by Amazon Luxemburg); > > - the total of gTLD applications by US companies' branches based > in tax heavens is 891; just 390 applications are formally from > US-based companies' headquarters; > > - in summary, 47% of all gTLD applications are operations by US > companies' branches based in tax heavens; > > - of the total 1930 bids, 1455 (75,4%) will be run by one of seven > US backend operators. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 16:18:10 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:18:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. > You will find the verbatims in my articles. > > Warm regards, > > @+, Dominique > > Thanks Dominique, I am looking forward to reading your articles when they come out. :) Warm Regards, Sala > -- > Dominique Lacroixhttp://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > > > Le 04/03/13 22:02, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit : > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear folks, this may or may not pertain to any current thread of >> "dialogue", but is nonetheless quite interesting, and perhaps revealing of >> the nature of the gTLD business. >> >> Journalist Dominique Lacroix (Le Monde) has put together some statistics >> regarding the economic interests behind the gTLD craze unleashed by ICANN: >> > > This is interesting Carlos and Dominique. Do you have the URL to the piece > that Dominique wrote? > >> >> - 393 US applications are by US companies' branches based in European tax >> heavens (including 76 bids by Amazon Luxemburg); >> >> - the total of gTLD applications by US companies' branches based in tax >> heavens is 891; just 390 applications are formally from US-based companies' >> headquarters; >> >> - in summary, 47% of all gTLD applications are operations by US >> companies' branches based in tax heavens; >> >> - of the total 1930 bids, 1455 (75,4%) will be run by one of seven US >> backend operators. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 16:31:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:31:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have anything to do with this issue? ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation if they did? Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > Le 04/03/13 22:02, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit : > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear folks, this may or may not pertain to any current thread of >> "dialogue", but is nonetheless quite interesting, and perhaps revealing of >> the nature of the gTLD business. >> >> Journalist Dominique Lacroix (Le Monde) has put together some statistics >> regarding the economic interests behind the gTLD craze unleashed by ICANN: > > > This is interesting Carlos and Dominique. Do you have the URL to the piece > that Dominique wrote? >> >> >> - 393 US applications are by US companies' branches based in European tax >> heavens (including 76 bids by Amazon Luxemburg); >> >> - the total of gTLD applications by US companies' branches based in tax >> heavens is 891; just 390 applications are formally from US-based companies' >> headquarters; >> >> - in summary, 47% of all gTLD applications are operations by US companies' >> branches based in tax heavens; >> >> - of the total 1930 bids, 1455 (75,4%) will be run by one of seven US >> backend operators. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Mar 4 16:41:21 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:41:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for > new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to > incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation > if they did? > > Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: - outreach, - developping countries. The same conclusions as Emily Taylor, the EURID speaker at WSIS+10. Now, the only thing we can do is to change our way of speaking: Don't tell "the Internet". Tell "the American Internet". The other Internets will appear very soon with such behaviours... @+, cheers, -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 17:06:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:36:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is actually a good one. And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright infringement. What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad definition, The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is penetrated and the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen? --srs (iPad) On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? > > Posted on March 4, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog > Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent > > We reported last year: > > The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this. > > As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes: > > This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. > > The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia. > > We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security. > > The Verge reported last month: > > In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweeping executive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12. > *** > > “Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage, theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.” > > *** > > “The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote. > > The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…” > > But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads: > > “The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” > > This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.” > > In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industries in its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so. > > It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy. > > This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 17:09:48 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:09:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. > > Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > anything to do with this issue? > > Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > > ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for > new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to > incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation > if they did? > > Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? > > These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: > - outreach, > - developping countries. Having lived in developing countries for nearly a decade, I can say that folks there do run registrars and know that they can make money registering domain names for their customers. The business case for running a TLD registry is less clear to them (and to me). Would you risk 185k USD on the off chance you would win the rights to sell registrations under a specific word? I think that ICANN could have spent more time and money on outreach and education around new TLDs, but I doubt that it would have seriously boosted the number of folk from the developing world who were willing to ante up to play in this particular poker game. -- 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 apisan at unam.mx Mon Mar 4 17:15:03 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:15:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBD0B0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> +1 Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 16:09 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. > > Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > anything to do with this issue? > > Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > > ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for > new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to > incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation > if they did? > > Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? > > These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: > - outreach, > - developping countries. Having lived in developing countries for nearly a decade, I can say that folks there do run registrars and know that they can make money registering domain names for their customers. The business case for running a TLD registry is less clear to them (and to me). Would you risk 185k USD on the off chance you would win the rights to sell registrations under a specific word? I think that ICANN could have spent more time and money on outreach and education around new TLDs, but I doubt that it would have seriously boosted the number of folk from the developing world who were willing to ante up to play in this particular poker game. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 17:14:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:44:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> The application process is open and we do have developing country applications to some extent. Not to mention that there is often a preference for cctlds to factor in. The rush here has been to corner brand names as tlds, which are of doubtful value. People will tend to go to ebay.com rather than paperclips.ebay if they want to buy paper clips. Th vast majority of these new gtlds will, like previous new gtlds (.museum and others) just fade out after a while, for all this noise. So I fail to see any Internet divide happening here --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2013, at 3:11, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>> The demonstration is clear. >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>> days. >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>> >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>> anything to do with this issue? > Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > >> ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for >> new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to >> incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation >> if they did? >> >> Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? > These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: > - outreach, > - developping countries. > The same conclusions as Emily Taylor, the EURID speaker at WSIS+10. > Now, the only thing we can do is to change our way of speaking: > Don't tell "the Internet". Tell "the American Internet". > The other Internets will appear very soon with such behaviours... > > > @+, cheers, > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 17:26:30 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:26:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> Message-ID: "The application process is open and we do have developing country applications to some extent." That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of policy-making, does it? Regards Diego On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The application process is open and we do have developing country > applications to some extent. Not to mention that there is often a > preference for cctlds to factor in. > > The rush here has been to corner brand names as tlds, which are of > doubtful value. People will tend to go to ebay.com rather than > paperclips.ebay if they want to buy paper clips. > > Th vast majority of these new gtlds will, like previous new gtlds (.museum > and others) just fade out after a while, for all this noise. > > So I fail to see any Internet divide happening here > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Mar-2013, at 3:11, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. > > Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > anything to do with this issue? > > Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > > ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for > new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to > incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation > if they did? > > Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? > > These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: > - outreach, > - developping countries. > The same conclusions as Emily Taylor, the EURID speaker at WSIS+10. > > Now, the only thing we can do is to change our way of speaking: > Don't tell "the Internet". Tell "the American Internet". > The other Internets will appear very soon with such behaviours... > > > @+, cheers, > > -- > Dominique Lacroixhttp://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 4 17:28:25 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:28:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C89CC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may express a separate but related frustration....tying back to prior discussion on taxes, and tax havens. US companies that earn profits overseas often are reluctant to repatriate the profits to the US, instead leaving the $ parked offshore. Most of the big US tech companies have such cash stockpiles; which is a tad frustrating to US entrepreneurs suggesting new opportunities to them. So....it seems that some found a use for some of that cash, ie paying gtld filing fees. Playing the GTLD lottery beats paying taxes, I guess must be their CFO's thinking. Sigh. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:09 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix Subject: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > Dear Sala, > > Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > The demonstration is clear. > Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > days. > I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > members of ICANN board/GNSO. > > Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > anything to do with this issue? > > Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > > ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for > new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to > incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation > if they did? > > Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? > > These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: > - outreach, > - developping countries. Having lived in developing countries for nearly a decade, I can say that folks there do run registrars and know that they can make money registering domain names for their customers. The business case for running a TLD registry is less clear to them (and to me). Would you risk 185k USD on the off chance you would win the rights to sell registrations under a specific word? I think that ICANN could have spent more time and money on outreach and education around new TLDs, but I doubt that it would have seriously boosted the number of folk from the developing world who were willing to ante up to play in this particular poker game. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 17:36:29 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:36:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > "The application process is open and we do have developing country > applications to some extent." > > That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the > process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that > favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it > doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of > policy-making, does it? I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy proposals that would have changed these outcomes. -- 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Mar 4 17:41:03 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:41:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. Dear McTimand Alejandro, I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say both of you. BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf He supports ICANN initiative that included a *public interest commitment* in the new registry contract. NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill /"the need //for//commitment to be binding and enforceable."// /Well. And now, what is the content of public interest? /"The fight against couterfeiting and piracy."/ A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security forces etc. A strange ideaof public interest, isn't it? @+, cheers, -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 17:42:46 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:42:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> Message-ID: I believe your own proposal related to "more time and money on outreach and education around" the topic is a very good start. Also, creating a layered approach to the application process can be a matter of fostering the spread of that business around. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > "The application process is open and we do have developing country > > applications to some extent." > > > > That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in > the > > process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that > > favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it > > doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of > > policy-making, does it? > > I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy > proposals that would have changed these outcomes. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Mar 4 17:49:16 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:49:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<513522FF.309@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBD230@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Dominique, thanks for your advice. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Dominique Lacroix [dl at panamo.eu] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 16:41 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where corporations are housed is well out of scope. Dear McTim and Alejandro, I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say both of you. BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf He supports ICANN initiative that included a public interest commitment in the new registry contract. NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill "the need for commitment to be binding and enforceable." Well. And now, what is the content of public interest? "The fight against couterfeiting and piracy." A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security forces etc. A strange idea of public interest, isn't it? @+, cheers, -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 17:52:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 04:22:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C89CC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C89CC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50739EC2-9B32-4619-8F3B-4F091ACD9064@hserus.net> Playing this lottery and paying ICANN travel surely has putting the money in bills into a bin and lighting a match beat ... But there's no more utility in one than in the other. So it would be a CFO not quite in a position to read facts who does this --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2013, at 3:58, Lee W McKnight wrote: > If I may express a separate but related frustration....tying back to prior discussion on taxes, and tax havens. > > US companies that earn profits overseas often are reluctant to repatriate the profits to the US, instead leaving the $ parked offshore. > > Most of the big US tech companies have such cash stockpiles; which is a tad frustrating to US entrepreneurs suggesting new opportunities to them. > > So....it seems that some found a use for some of that cash, ie paying gtld filing fees. > > Playing the GTLD lottery beats paying taxes, I guess must be their CFO's thinking. Sigh. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:09 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix > Subject: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? >> >> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > >> >> >> ICANN must have a fair, open and transparent application process for >> new TLDs. They can't discriminate against folks who decide to >> incorporate in a specific location!! Can you imagine the litigation >> if they did? >> >> Is anyone even surprised by these numbers? >> >> These numbers also demonstrate two failings of the TLDs program: >> - outreach, >> - developping countries. > > Having lived in developing countries for nearly a decade, I can say > that folks there do run registrars and know that they can make money > registering domain names for their customers. > > The business case for running a TLD registry is less clear to them > (and to me). Would you risk 185k USD on the off chance you would win > the rights to sell registrations under a specific word? > > I think that ICANN could have spent more time and money on outreach > and education around new TLDs, but I doubt that it would have > seriously boosted the number of folk from the developing world who > were willing to ante up to play in this particular poker game. > > -- > 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Mar 4 18:03:30 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:03:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: >> "The application process is open and we do have developing country >> applications to some extent." >> >> That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the >> process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that >> favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it >> doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of >> policy-making, does it? > > I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy > proposals that would have changed these outcomes. I would be happy to hear your suggestions on this very same issue too, McTim. Or is there nothing whatsoever objectionable about North American companies dominating the gTLD space? C'est la vie (et le fonctionnement du marché libre)? And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have disappeared again? Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 18:06:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:06:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : > > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > Dear McTim and Alejandro, > I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. no, you did not write that. I implied it from the nature of your questions and factoids gathered. > Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) > > I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. > About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. Asking the ICANN CEO or Board Members to comment on this is like me asking my auto mechanic why my car doesn't run on sunshine...In other words, rather pointless. > The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. > The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. for?? > The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! Certainly inside the world, I grant you that. However, each org of the eco-system has a narrow role to play. None of them will take on the issue of tax havens for large corporations, as it is simply out of scope. >. > You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say both > of you. I am sure he was quite diplomatic. > > BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf > > He supports ICANN initiative that included a public interest commitment in > the new registry contract. as do I. > NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill "the need for commitment to be binding and > enforceable." That's a big ask, but perhaps do-able. > Well. > And now, what is the content of public interest? > "The fight against couterfeiting and piracy." not in the ICANN context it is not. Do you honestly think ICANN should take on issues of piracy and counterfeiting? And what do they have to do with tax havens? > > A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... ICANN should/can/must NOT have any role to play in this kind of thing either. > But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security > forces etc. nor these things. > A strange idea of public interest, isn't it? indeed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 4 19:40:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:40:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: <5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com> References: <5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130305014011.68381935@quill.bollow.ch> Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Great stuff... +1 Greetings, Norbert > On 2013/03/04 03:22 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear governance list colleagues, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 19:42:15 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:42:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: <20130305014011.68381935@quill.bollow.ch> References: <5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com> <20130305014011.68381935@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Nick :) On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > Great stuff... > > +1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On 2013/03/04 03:22 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > Dear governance list colleagues, > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 20:00:46 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:00:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Hi Pranesh, On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> wrote: >>> "The application process is open and we do have developing country >>> applications to some extent." >>> >>> That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the >>> process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that >>> favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it >>> doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of >>> policy-making, does it? >> >> I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy >> proposals that would have changed these outcomes. > > I would be happy to hear your suggestions on this very same issue too, I don't think it is possible to have changed the outcome (marginally changed, yes, significantly changed, probably not). > McTim. Or is there nothing whatsoever objectionable about North > American companies dominating the gTLD space? C'est la vie (et le > fonctionnement du marché libre)? Are we talking back end providers (the 74% figure cited in CA's mail) or dominance by companies applying for newTLDs? As for backend providers, It's worth noting. I'm not sure that I object to it. There is nothing artificial in it I think. More to the point, I don't think that ICANN could (or should try) to do anything about it. You might as well ask if I find it "objectionable" that France dominates in Brie production. For front-end registries, I think the answer is similar in that lots of domainers are Americans, and they have the "cyber real-estate" mentality, and are more willing to speculate with their money on new TLDs. > And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD > application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be > mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have > disappeared again? JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since she was on the JAS WG I think. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 4 20:33:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:33:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8A47@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re: > And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD > application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be > mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have > disappeared again? JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since she was on the JAS WG I think. My comment: ICANN did prep the process...but as McTim noted, very few applications came in. As noted Avri may have more specifics. Frankly, my take is that even with the discounts, the amount of time/effort to go through the process, and then promise to keep a gTLD up more or less indefinitely, for an economic value proposition of high uncertainty; was something that very few developing country ngo-type groups were prepared to gamble their limited resources on. Since they don't have cash piles parked in offshore accounts, generally speaking, that was probably a wise move. Although I expect a few more may choose to participate next time around, if the value proposition is clearer, based on how the present round works out. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:00 PM To: Pranesh Prakash Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Hi Pranesh, On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> wrote: >>> "The application process is open and we do have developing country >>> applications to some extent." >>> >>> That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the >>> process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that >>> favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it >>> doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of >>> policy-making, does it? >> >> I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy >> proposals that would have changed these outcomes. > > I would be happy to hear your suggestions on this very same issue too, I don't think it is possible to have changed the outcome (marginally changed, yes, significantly changed, probably not). > McTim. Or is there nothing whatsoever objectionable about North > American companies dominating the gTLD space? C'est la vie (et le > fonctionnement du marché libre)? Are we talking back end providers (the 74% figure cited in CA's mail) or dominance by companies applying for newTLDs? As for backend providers, It's worth noting. I'm not sure that I object to it. There is nothing artificial in it I think. More to the point, I don't think that ICANN could (or should try) to do anything about it. You might as well ask if I find it "objectionable" that France dominates in Brie production. For front-end registries, I think the answer is similar in that lots of domainers are Americans, and they have the "cyber real-estate" mentality, and are more willing to speculate with their money on new TLDs. > And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD > application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be > mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have > disappeared again? JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since she was on the JAS WG I think. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 20:41:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:11:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <13d383406d7.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8A47@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <13d3835bf44.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Is there actual market demand at all? The vast majority are just corporations doing protective registration of their brand names and some speculation. I have not seen very many that are community driven though those too exist. In which case, my comparison of domaining to the tulip bubble holds good here. http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth/ --srs (htc one x) On 5 March 2013 7:03:58 AM Lee W McKnight wrote: > Re: > > > And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD > > application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be > > mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have > > disappeared again? > > JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since > she was on the JAS WG I think. > > My comment: ICANN did prep the process...but as McTim noted, very few > applications came in. As noted Avri may have more specifics. > > Frankly, my take is that even with the discounts, the amount of > time/effort to go through the process, and then promise to keep a gTLD > up more or less indefinitely, for an economic value proposition of high > uncertainty; was something that very few developing country ngo-type > groups were prepared to gamble their limited resources on. Since > they don't have cash piles parked in offshore accounts, generally > speaking, that was probably a wise move. > > Although I expect a few more may choose to participate next time > around, if the value proposition is clearer, based on how the present > round works out. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim > [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:00 PM > To: Pranesh Prakash > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > Hi Pranesh, > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]: > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> wrote: > >>> "The application process is open and we do have developing country > >>> applications to some extent." > >>> > >>> That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the > >>> process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that > >>> favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it > >>> doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of > >>> policy-making, does it? > >> > >> I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy > >> proposals that would have changed these outcomes. > > > > I would be happy to hear your suggestions on this very same issue too, > > > I don't think it is possible to have changed the outcome (marginally > changed, yes, significantly changed, probably not). > > > McTim. Or is there nothing whatsoever objectionable about North > > American companies dominating the gTLD space? C'est la vie (et le > > fonctionnement du marché libre)? > > > Are we talking back end providers (the 74% figure cited in CA's mail) > or dominance by companies applying for newTLDs? > > As for backend providers, It's worth noting. I'm not sure that I > object to it. There is nothing artificial in it I think. More to the > point, I don't think that ICANN could (or should try) to do anything > about it. > > You might as well ask if I find it "objectionable" that France > dominates in Brie production. > > For front-end registries, I think the answer is similar in that lots > of domainers are Americans, and they have the "cyber real-estate" > mentality, and are more willing to speculate with their money on new > TLDs. > > > > And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD > > application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be > > mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have > > disappeared again? > > JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since > she was on the JAS WG I think. > > -- > 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 acm.org Mon Mar 4 21:42:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:42:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8A47@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8A47@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5F26F588-3CF1-4538-895D-DDB4AF8D7DE9@acm.org> On 4 Mar 2013, at 20:33, Lee W McKnight wrote: > JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since > she was on the JAS WG I think. Yes, I was. While we did come up with a program for supporting applicants from developing economies it was too late and it got only a handful of applicants - we are still waiting on the results to see if any of them recieve aid in paying for their applications. I am currently chairing a group in ICANN's At-Large that is trying to pin down why outreach went so badly and how it can be remediated. The group is in the first third of its work. We are trying to get beyond some of the known reasons like poor outreach, hight cost and a late response to providing aid, as it took forever to get things rolling for various reasons. avri Further Information: Group: At-Large New gTLD Working Group Project: Outreach evaluation & recommendation Review and remediation of poor results in both applications for new gTLDs and applications for support from developing economies. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Mar 4 20:51:22 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:51:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca> Hi McT, I have to ask: what is a "factoid" in this case? An undesirable fact? --c.a. On 03/04/2013 08:06 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : >> >> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >> >> Dear McTim and Alejandro, >> I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. > > > no, you did not write that. I implied it from the nature of your > questions and factoids gathered. > > > >> Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) >> >> I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. >> About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. > > > Asking the ICANN CEO or Board Members to comment on this is like me > asking my auto mechanic why my car doesn't run on sunshine...In other > words, rather pointless. > >> The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. >> The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. > > for?? > >> The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! > > Certainly inside the world, I grant you that. > > However, each org of the eco-system has a narrow role to play. None > of them will take on the issue of tax havens for large corporations, > as it is simply out of scope. > >> . > >> You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say both >> of you. > > I am sure he was quite diplomatic. > >> >> BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf >> >> He supports ICANN initiative that included a public interest commitment in >> the new registry contract. > > > as do I. > >> NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill "the need for commitment to be binding and >> enforceable." > > That's a big ask, but perhaps do-able. > >> Well. >> And now, what is the content of public interest? >> "The fight against couterfeiting and piracy." > > not in the ICANN context it is not. Do you honestly think ICANN > should take on issues of piracy and counterfeiting? And what do they > have to do with tax havens? > >> >> A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... > > ICANN should/can/must NOT have any role to play in this kind of thing either. > > >> But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security >> forces etc. > > nor these things. > >> A strange idea of public interest, isn't it? > > indeed. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Mar 4 20:54:01 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:54:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> Now this is a terrible comparison -- brie is French, the Internet the last time I looked is universal... Calm down, McTim :) --c.a. On 03/04/2013 10:00 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi Pranesh, > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]: >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> wrote: >>>> "The application process is open and we do have developing country >>>> applications to some extent." >>>> >>>> That, per se, cannot be taken as a measure of fairness and equality in the >>>> process, can it? Especially in the context of path dependent effects that >>>> favor incumbents (North American) ICT firms. No surprise at all, but it >>>> doesn't mean that these self-reinforcing trends shall not be object of >>>> policy-making, does it? >>> >>> I would be happy to hear your suggestions on realistic policy >>> proposals that would have changed these outcomes. >> >> I would be happy to hear your suggestions on this very same issue too, > > > I don't think it is possible to have changed the outcome (marginally > changed, yes, significantly changed, probably not). > >> McTim. Or is there nothing whatsoever objectionable about North >> American companies dominating the gTLD space? C'est la vie (et le >> fonctionnement du marché libre)? > > > Are we talking back end providers (the 74% figure cited in CA's mail) > or dominance by companies applying for newTLDs? > > As for backend providers, It's worth noting. I'm not sure that I > object to it. There is nothing artificial in it I think. More to the > point, I don't think that ICANN could (or should try) to do anything > about it. > > You might as well ask if I find it "objectionable" that France > dominates in Brie production. > > For front-end registries, I think the answer is similar in that lots > of domainers are Americans, and they have the "cyber real-estate" > mentality, and are more willing to speculate with their money on new > TLDs. > > >> And whatever happened to the differential developing country gTLD >> application rates that I heard about at one point (and seems to be >> mentioned in the minutes of one ICANN meeting), but seems to have >> disappeared again? > > JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since > she was on the JAS WG I think. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Mar 4 20:48:02 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:48:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <51354ED2.6030504@cafonso.ca> Chère Dominique, First of all, sorry, Dominique, to throw you into the Coliseum arena. :) But maybe the reactions, even the knee-jerk ones, will help you in going deeper in your work on this theme. Cordialement --c.a. On 03/04/2013 07:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : >> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. > Dear McTimand Alejandro, > I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. > Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) > > I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. > About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. > The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. > The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. > The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! > > You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say > both of you. > > BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf > > He supports ICANN initiative that included a *public interest > commitment* in the new registry contract. > NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill /"the need //for//commitment to be binding > and enforceable."// > /Well. > And now, what is the content of public interest? > /"The fight against couterfeiting and piracy."/ > > A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... > But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security > forces etc. > A strange ideaof public interest, isn't it? > > @+, cheers, > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 4 22:56:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:56:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?UNESCO_Regional_LAC_Consultation_on?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=2C=2COpen_Access_to_Scientific_Information_and_Research?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_=96_Concept_and_Policies=2C?= In-Reply-To: <513350A2.7060805@yacine.net> References: <513350A2.7060805@yacine.net> Message-ID: *Regional LAC Consultation on* *Open Access to Scientific Information and Research – Concept and Policies,* *5 to 8 March, 2013 Hotel Wyndham*** *Kingston, Jamaica* *Provisional Agenda ( Draft ver 28_Feb 2013)* Introduction:** Open Access (OA) is a term widely used to refer to unrestricted online access to articles published in scholarly journals. Since the events that took place in Budapest and Berlin in early 2000s, it has remained as one of the most passionately discussed topics among the scientific and scholarly community. It is an ongoing movement with many advocates and proponents unfalteringly championing the cause. OA movement is aligned with the overarching Millennium Development Goals (MDG) with its focus on bolstering human capital and the World Summit on the Information Society’s goal of building open and inclusive knowledge societies. To achieve the goal of open and inclusive knowledge societies, different approaches and strategies have been adopted by UNESCO. UNESCO supports OA for the benefit of the global flow of knowledge, innovation and equitable socio‐economic development. Its constitution, written much before the advent of electronic publishing, mandates: *UNESCO should 'maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the conservation and protection of the world's inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science*' (Constitution, art, 1.2 c). UNESCO’s open suite strategy (now referred as Open Solutions) primarily includes the Open Educational Resources (OER); Open Access to scientific literature (OA); Open Training Platform (OTP) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). Access to scientific information is a major problem, especially due to a high and increasing cost of peer-reviewed journals and fluctuations in the exchange rates. Open Access is the provision of free access to peer-reviewed, scholarly and research information to all. It envisages that the rights holder grants worldwide irrevocable right of access to copy, use, distribute, transmit, and make derivative works in any format for any lawful activities with proper attribution to the original author. Objectives: **** The main objective of the Regional Consultation will be to share how free and unrestricted access to research and scholarly communication can increase the impact of research and benefit research institutions, authors, journal publishers and the society as a whole. The Consultation will examine how the context of Open Access in the region can add to the productivity, visibility and accessibility of research and research outcomes. The Consultation will create an enabling mechanism to assess contexts of mandates or policy framework that surrounds Open Access. It will provide an opportunity for reflecting upon case studies and examples of how Open Access has influenced teaching, research and development in the region. Workshop participants will also have an opportunity to contributetowards highlighting priority areas for intervention to achieve “Openness” in the region and individual countries. Participants are also expected to review the UNESCO OA policy templates and workout specific policy for their own country/institution and develop a work plan on how to implement the same with specific timeline. · Strengthen awareness of the participants on the potential of Open Access in scientific knowledge sharing that can be dramatically accelerated by ICTs; **** · Provide analysis for anticipating foreseeable trends and emerging challenges in order to enable stakeholders to develop strategies and policies for implementation of Open Access;**** · Develop a partnership and collaboration among interested stakeholders as an enabling mechanism to improve access to and sharing of scientific information and research through Open Access. **** ** ** Expected Outcomes:**** ** ** The Regional Consultation of the Open Access is expected to achieve the following results: **** · UNESCO’s stakeholders enabled to understand trends and emerging challenges related to the impact of open access on scientific information acquisition and sharing; **** · Context and the utility of Open Access policy discussed and regional specificities analysed as barriers or support for Open Access Policy adoption; **** · Specific technology generated trends, and their consequences for development in scientific information and research sharing better understood; **** · Collaborative and collective efforts and actions behind the Open Access movement discussed and their policy implications are appreciated; *** * Best practices of Open Access Initiatives from the region and beyond discussed and taken note of as a model to follow.**** ** ** Agenda:**** *Day 1 (Tuesday 5 March 2013): Inauguration and; Introduction to the Consultation* 09:00- 10:00 *Registration* 10.00 -11.30 *Inauguration * ** ** • Welcome Remarks: Ms. Lisa Hanna, Minister of Youth and Culture and Chairperson, Jamaica National Commission for UNESCO • Introduction and establishing the context: Dr. Indrajit Banerjee, Director, Knowledge Society Division, CI Sector, UNESCO • Address by Honorable Ambassador Yasuo Takase, the Embassy of Japan for Jamaica, Bahamas and Belize • Address by Professor Eon Nigel Harris, Vice Chancellor, University of West Indies • Inaugural Address: Hon. Julian Robinson, Minister of State for Science, Technology, Energy and Mining,, Jamaica • Closing remarks and Vote-of Thanks: Mr. Robert Parua, Director-in-charge, UNESCO Kingston Cluster 11.00 -11.30:**** Coffee break 11:30 – 12:45**** Session I: **** Session Chair and Key-note speech by Prof. Ronald Young, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of West Indies ** ** Rapporteur: ** ** Introduction to the concept and underlying principles of UNESCO’s Strategies for Open Access to Scientific Information and Research: Dr. Bhanu Neupane 12:45- 14:00**** Lunch 14:00-16:30**** Session II: Presentation of Regional Significance Session Chair: Dr. Indrajit Banerjee, Director, Knowledge Societies Division, UNESCO ** ** Mr. Abel Parker: SciELO: 15 years of Open Access Movement**** Ms. Dominique Babini: OA in the LAC Region**** ** ** 15.30 -16.00:**** Coffee break 18.00 **** Reception Cocktail by Ministries, National Commission ** ** ** ** ** ** *Day 2 (Wednesday 6 March 2013): Situation of Open Access in GRULAC (Country Presentations)* The day will be dedicated for Country-level presentations on policy for Open Access, inter alia, key approaches taken in the country, successes, key achievements, Open Access journals, management and maintenance of repositories. Presentation from the Participations (sit-in narration or 10 slides, maximum 12 minute presentation, you may review UNESCO GOAP and provide any update that you may deem appropriate): § A brief overview of Open Access in your country (What is your perspective on the current status of OA developments in your country? Who are the major players (organizations and institutions)? What are the key national projects and initiatives?) § What are the potential barriers for further adoption? § What are the desired developments? § How kind of collaborative and collective efforts could contribute to advance OA in the region? § For countries where Open Access has had some success: what are the enabling features in the country? § What have been the critical success factors? § What national organizations or funding agencies have mandates in place requiring researchers to deposit their scholarship into an Open Access repository? * * 10:00 – 11:00**** Session III: Presentations on OA and GRULAC Session Chair: Mr. Evert Hannam, Chairperson, Jamaican National Commission for UNESCO Rapporteur: ** ** Name of countries : Jamaica, Argentine, Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, British Virgin Islands**** 11.00 -11.30:**** Coffee break ** ** Name of countries: Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador**** 13:00- 14:15**** Lunch 14:15 – 17:30**** Session IV: Presentations on OA and GRULAC Session Chair: Ms. Dominique Babini, Argentine Rapporteur: 14:15-16:00**** Name of countries : El Salvador, Guyana, Grenada, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru*** * 16.00 -16.30:**** Coffee break 16.30 -17.30:**** Name of countries: Suriname, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and Grenadines, St. Martin, Uruguay, Venezuela ** ** ** ** ** ** *Day 3 (Thursday 7 March 2013): Group Work to develop Regional Strategy)* 10:00 – 11:45**** Session V: Group Discussion 1. Assessing level of Understanding of Open Access and Open Access Policy **** Discussion 1:00 hours: coffee time could be used for group discussion **** ** ** This session will provide an opportunity to the participants to make brief intervention on situation, available mandates and/or policies and the current status of Open Access in the region. The participants will be split in 2-3 groups and will be requested to discuss the following issues, primarily based on the country-level presentations, and report it back to the plenary:**** ** ** • What needs to be done to increase awareness about Open Access in the region? • What guideline should be made for the Governments and other research funders on Open Access • Form of Policy – Is it possible to make OA as a mandatory clause for research funding? • Scope of the policy – Is the OA understood uniformly? Is it possible to declare everything open, if not, what should be included and what should be allowed to remain restricted? What are target contents?**** Outcome: 1-2 page bulleted text summarizing the situation in the region**** ** ** Session VI: Group Discussion 2. OA Implementing Open Access Discussion 1:00 hours: coffee time could be used for group discussion. **** ** ** • Licensing o What is the best licensing that can be utilized o How to best comply with the policy on OA? • Status of Open repositories in the region/country, mechanism of their operation? • Green or the Gold Form of Open Access? • Cooling off period before the documents are made Open Access • Article processing charges • Copyright o Compliance and sanctions • Capacity building needs Outcome: 1-2 page bulleted text summarizing the situation in the region 13:00- 14:15**** Lunch ** ** Session VII: Group Discussion 3. *Collective Strategy for the future* Discussion 1:00 hours: coffee time could be used for group discussion. **** ** ** • Regional Network • Who are the major players (organizations and institutions)? What are the key regional projects and initiatives? • What are the potential barriers for further adoption? • Which organization can provide a regional leadership? • What kinds of collaborative and collective efforts could contribute to advance OA in the region? • Role for UNESCO in approaching OA policy • List issues that a multilateral organization like UNESCO can potentially address Outcome: 1-2 page bulleted text summarizing the situation in the region 15:00-17:00**** The session will conclude with plenary presentation of the groups and identification of a few people to draft regional understanding and commitment for Open Access, including recommendations, which will be summation of outcomes of all three session. In this session, participants will have the opportunity to review the UNESCO OA policy template and workout specific policy for their own country/institution and develop a work-plan on how to implement the same with specific timeline. ** ** *Day 4 (Friday 8 March 2013): * 10:00 – 11:00**** Discussion on Consultation Recommendations Collectively browse the set of agreement to finalize the final recommendation (session to be held, if this task is left unfinished) 11.00 -11.30:**** Coffee break 11:30 – 13:15**** ** ** Session VIII: **** IFAP: Programme and Priorities: Mr. Eric Nurse, Vice Chair, IFAP **** Approaching an Information Policy **** Facilitated by Dr. Susana Finquelievich ** ** UNESCO’s standard-setting work is addressed primarily to Member States, i.e. their governments. The IFAP Template fully endorses the multi-stakeholder approach to the development of the Information Society, however, and acknowledges that the role of other stakeholders (especially entrepreneurs, network, service and content providers, but also, of course, civil society and NGOs) is as (if not, in some cases, more) important as that of governments. Nevertheless, this depends on the specific circumstances, and also on the stage of the process of developing the Information Society, in any particular country. The emphasis in this Template is primarily on what governments and the civil service should do and this was a deliberate choice, in keeping with the approach adopted in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, given that the document may be most useful in countries where the role of government policy and of the public sector is especially important.**** 13:15- 14:15**** Lunch 16.00-17.00**** Concluding session with special note on the Role of Women in Building Knowledge Societies: Commemorating International Women’s Day Key-note Address: The Hon. Sen. Sandrea Falconer Minister for Information Concluding Remarks: Dr. Arun Kashyap, UNCT Coordinator, Jamaica( TBC) Vote of Thanks: Mr. Evert Hannam Chairperson, Jamaica National Commission for UNESCO ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Mar 4 23:11:27 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:11:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: <5134F69F.6080800@apc.org> References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <5134F69F.6080800@apc.org> Message-ID: <5135706F.8080903@apc.org> Apologies.. as you all probably guessed. The CSTD chair has asked for 3 names from developing countries, and 3 from developed countries. Anriette On 04/03/2013 21:31, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks Devon! > > For everyone's information, I have convened a small selection group to > help me to come up with the final shortlist. I have also received, at > last count, 12 nominations. > > The chair of the CSTD has asked me to compile a list of 6 names- 3 > from developed countries and 3 from developed countries. > I will keep you all updated. > > Anriette > > On 04/03/2013 19:46, Devon Blake wrote: >> Dear All, >> The following persons are selected for by the nomcom for >> recomendation to >> the CSTD. >> Norbort Bollow >> Avri Doria >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Congrats to you all. Please note that in order for the proper >> information >> to reach Anriette, we need the following information immediately. Once >> received I will send all documentation to Anriette. If the profile >> you sent >> already contains all the info then please state and I will send as is. >> >> Thanks to all the Nomcom team for their sterling work on this. >> >> Regards! >> >> >> Devon >> >> >> Please include: >> 1. Your name, email and contact number >> 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are >> affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity >> please provide information on the selection process. >> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your >> job title) >> 3. Your country of residence >> 4. Your nationality and your gender >> >> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD >> chair in making the final selection: >> >> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented >> policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also >> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that >> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have >> a lot to contribute)? >> >> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in >> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general? >> >> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings >> and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Sarah Kiden wrote: >> >>> Devon, >>> >>> Does that mean that we have to score again (especially for the optional >>> criteria)? >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Devon Blake wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> Attached please see my tally on your selections to the CSTD, There are >>>> however some issues. As you will notice there is a tie between two >>>> of the >>>> Candidates, Avri and William and only one more needs to be >>>> selected. Also >>>> in reviewing your scores I note that apart from Sarah everyone >>>> scored the >>>> optional criteria out of 10 instead of five as agreed. Time is >>>> short and it >>>> is critical that we announce the successful candidates immediately, >>>> could >>>> you all please look at your scoring and find a way to break the tie >>>> between >>>> Avri and William? thanks. This is urgent. >>>> Regards, >>>> Devon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Devon and Members of the NomCom, >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes in your deliberations as you undertake what is one of the >>>>> most important tasks for the IGC this year. >>>>> >>>>> I wish you well in your work. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Devon Blake >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Sala, >>>>>> I will do my best to see the process completed. >>>>>> Devon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>> snaalanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Devon, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for stepping up. This is a difficult time as you can >>>>>>> imagine. Ginger will also be available to provide language >>>>>>> translation >>>>>>> assistance should it be necessary and your past experiences in >>>>>>> past NomComs >>>>>>> will certainly be useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Devon Blake >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Sala/Nomcom members, >>>>>>>> In order to facilitate the smooth running of this selection >>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> and to ensure the process is constitutionally correct, I will >>>>>>>> forgo my >>>>>>>> voting privileges to chair the Nomcom committee, provided of >>>>>>>> course that >>>>>>>> Tracey keeps her promise and assist. >>>>>>>> Devon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tracey Naughton < >>>>>>>> tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Nomcom Members and Sala, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greetings from burning hot Melbourne. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have just gone through my emails and identified the candidates >>>>>>>>> listed below. Have I missed anyone? >>>>>>>>> I think we have 8 candidates. >>>>>>>>> I sent each of these people a note confirming receipt of their >>>>>>>>> nomination. The note said: >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Dear ....., >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you may know the Chair of the Nomcom had to recuse himself >>>>>>>>> and we >>>>>>>>> don't have a replacement to date. >>>>>>>>> As a courtesy, and as a member of the Nomcom, I am just >>>>>>>>> letting you >>>>>>>>> know that your nomination has been received. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *We have nominations from:* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> William Drake >>>>>>>>> Norbert Bollow >>>>>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>>>>> Avri Doria >>>>>>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>>>>>>>> John B. Kavuma >>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am *attaching the spreadsheet *I drafted earlier and we >>>>>>>>> agreed to >>>>>>>>> use in order to select five candidates. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In doing this, I am not accepting the role of Chair. I would >>>>>>>>> like to >>>>>>>>> retain my vote. I am just hoping to make up some lost time and >>>>>>>>> keep us >>>>>>>>> moving forward. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Does anyone on the Nomcom want to take over as non-voting >>>>>>>>> Chair?*This would involve: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - encouraging all Nomcom members to go through the >>>>>>>>> applications and >>>>>>>>> complete the spreadsheet, then email it to the Chair >>>>>>>>> - counting all the spreadsheet results >>>>>>>>> - facilitating any discussions if there is a hung result >>>>>>>>> - reporting to the co-ordinators and IGF list on the process and >>>>>>>>> outcomes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm prepared to help with that work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tracey >>>>>>>>> __________________ >>>>>>>>> Tracey Naughton >>>>>>>>> (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, >>>>>>>>> Geneva and Tunis) >>>>>>>>> Communication for Development Consultant >>>>>>>>> Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - >>>>>>>>> Extractive Sector >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>> based in Victoria, Australia >>>>>>>>> land line: +613 54706853 >>>>>>>>> mobile: +61 413 019 707 >>>>>>>>> skype: tnaughton9999 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Members of NomCom, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Warm Greetings! This is to advise that Deirdre will not be >>>>>>>>> chairing >>>>>>>>> the NomCom. Since Guru has stepped down, I have asked Jeremy >>>>>>>>> to remove Guru >>>>>>>>> from the mailing list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Deirdre will NOT be the NomCom Independent Non-Voting Chair >>>>>>>>> and as >>>>>>>>> such we still do not have an Independent Non Voting Chair. I >>>>>>>>> would like the >>>>>>>>> NomCom to discuss amongst yourselves and advise who would be >>>>>>>>> willing to >>>>>>>>> forfeit their voting capacity and lead the NomCom to >>>>>>>>> finalising the process >>>>>>>>> of selecting the candidates. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As such I will ask Jeremy not to add Deirdre to the NomCom >>>>>>>>> mailing >>>>>>>>> list and to at the same time remove Guru from the mailing >>>>>>>>> list. Since >>>>>>>>> Norbert is applying for selection, he can no longer receive any >>>>>>>>> communications from you nor I on NomCom matters. He is to be >>>>>>>>> treated like >>>>>>>>> any ordinary candidate that comes through for your review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Devon Blake >>>>>>>> Special Projects Director >>>>>>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>>>>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>>>>>> Kgn 5 >>>>>>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>>>>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Devon Blake >>>>>> Special Projects Director >>>>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>>>> Kgn 5 >>>>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>>>> >>>>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Devon Blake >>>> Special Projects Director >>>> Earthwise Solutions Limited >>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>> Kgn 5 >>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>> >>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>> >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 23:14:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:14:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi McT, > > I have to ask: what is a "factoid" in this case? An undesirable fact? just insignificant, or devoid of context, not undesirable. In addition, I'd like to know where the 74% number comes from. I am thinking that that % probably includes Afilias, which most people think of as a US company, but they are not. -- 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 23:15:31 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:15:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> Message-ID: The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad? On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is > actually a good one. And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright > infringement. > > What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad > definition, > > The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright > infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is > penetrated and the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam > or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? > Posted on March 4, 2013 > by WashingtonsBlog > Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent > > We reportedlast year: > > The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams > have been deployed against them. See this, > this, > thisand > this . > > As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law > School notes > : > > This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with > language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. > > *The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on > political dissent **just like China and Russia > **.* > > We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to > do with security > . > > The Verge reportedlast month: > > In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announceda sweeping executive > orderimplementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for > intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber > threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical > infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of > whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in > four months, by June 12. > > *** > > “Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur > through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House > National Security Council, in an email to *The Verge*. “Such threats > include web site defacement, espionage,* theft of intellectual property*, > denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.” > > *** > > “The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical > infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote. > > The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), > passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what > created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still > reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the > nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its > definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means > any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or > potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…” > > But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is > considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 > bill , also passed in > response to September 11, which reads: > > “The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether > physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or > destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on > security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or > any combination of those matters.” > > This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s > cybersecurity orderas originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to > be relying to some degree on circular reasoningwhen it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the > right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, > are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to > include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, > such as agriculture.” > > In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies > that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, > includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking > to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a > broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is > reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all > businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its > unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against > cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the > expertise and ability to do so. > > It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror > lawsto help giant businesses … and to crush > those who speak out against their abusive practices, > labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy > . > This entry was posted in Business / Economics, > Politics / World News. > Bookmark the permalink. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Mar 4 23:26:14 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 04:26:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5F26F588-3CF1-4538-895D-DDB4AF8D7DE9@acm.org> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8A47@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<5F26F588-3CF1-4538-895D-DDB4AF8D7DE9@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBD89A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Avri, thanks for sharing this inofrmation and in particular the considerations of the group you are in for assessing the gTLD outreach program. What is the reason people are sure the program failed? The small number of gTLD applications from developing countries and to the JAS support? If so it seems that the group is assuming that "failure of outreach" is the only explanation for that small number, while many others can also be at work (simultaneously as this is most likely a multifactor phenomenon.) Lack of interest in speculative domain-name business, small number of global brands and then within these small number of companies who think owning a brand gTLD is a good investment, lack of market (either from a "seat of the pants" estimation, from market research, or from experience and analysis with ccTLDs and existing gTLDs, a preference to invest capital in less uncertain businesses which are more immediately available... quite a bunch.) We should all remember Occam' (or Ockham's) razor, but also we should remember that it works best when held by the handle, not by the sharp side. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 20:42 Hasta: IGC Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On 4 Mar 2013, at 20:33, Lee W McKnight wrote: > JAS? I don't think many folks used it, but Avri may know more, since > she was on the JAS WG I think. Yes, I was. While we did come up with a program for supporting applicants from developing economies it was too late and it got only a handful of applicants - we are still waiting on the results to see if any of them recieve aid in paying for their applications. I am currently chairing a group in ICANN's At-Large that is trying to pin down why outreach went so badly and how it can be remediated. The group is in the first third of its work. We are trying to get beyond some of the known reasons like poor outreach, hight cost and a late response to providing aid, as it took forever to get things rolling for various reasons. avri Further Information: Group: At-Large New gTLD Working Group Project: Outreach evaluation & recommendation Review and remediation of poor results in both applications for new gTLDs and applications for support from developing economies. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 23:30:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:00:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> You will find that are strictly enforced controls about keeping data within the usa and restricting access only to US citizens with a mandatory security clearance --srs (htc one x) On 5 March 2013 9:45:31 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer > part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the > fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the > computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical > infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad? > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is > > actually a good one. And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright > > infringement. > > > > What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad > > definition, > > > > The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright > > infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is > > penetrated and the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam > > or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen? > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As > Terrorism? > > Posted on March 4, > 2013 > > by WashingtonsBlog > > Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent > > > > We > reportedlast > year: > > > > The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams > > have been deployed against them. See > this, > > this, > > > thisand > > this . > > > > As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law > > School > notes > > : > > > > This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with > > language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. > > > > *The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on > > political dissent **just like China and > Russia > > **.* > > > > We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to > > do with > security > > . > > > > The Verge > reportedlast > month: > > > > In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama > announceda > sweeping executive > > > orderimplementing > new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for > > intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber > > threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical > > infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of > > whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in > > four months, by June 12. > > > > *** > > > > “Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur > > through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House > > National Security Council, in an email to *The Verge*. “Such threats > > include web site defacement, espionage,* theft of intellectual property*, > > denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.” > > > > *** > > > > “The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical > > infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote. > > > > The Homeland Security Act of 2002 > (PDF), > > passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what > > created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still > > reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the > > nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its > > definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means > > any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or > > potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…” > > > > But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is > > considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined > in a 2001 > > bill , also passed in > > response to September 11, which reads: > > > > “The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether > > physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or > > destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on > > security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or > > any combination of those matters.” > > > > This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the > president’s > > cybersecurity > orderas > originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to > > be relying to some degree on circular > reasoningwhen > it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the > > right-leaning think tank The Heritage > Foundation, > > are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to > > include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, > > such as agriculture.” > > > > In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies > > that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, > > includes 18 different > industriesin its > own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking > > to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a > > broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is > > reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all > > businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its > > unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against > > cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the > > expertise and ability to do so. > > > > It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using > anti-terror > > > lawsto > help giant businesses … and to crush > > those who speak out against their abusive > practices, > > labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad > guy > > . > > This entry was posted in Business / > Economics, > > Politics / World > News. > > Bookmark the > permalink. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 23:39:50 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:39:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: For sure. But does that make those computers and servers "critical infrastructure"? If disabled, they compromise the viability of the country? Or only the IT infrastructure directly connected to the dam or power plant in question (to quote just the things that were not prospective, i.e. 'new plane', 'new industrial process')? On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > You will find that are strictly enforced controls about keeping data > within the usa and restricting access only to US citizens with a mandatory > security clearance > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 5 March 2013 9:45:31 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro ** wrote: > > The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer > part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the > fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the > computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical > infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad? > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is >> actually a good one. And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright >> infringement. >> >> What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad >> definition, >> >> The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright >> infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is >> penetrated and the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam >> or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >> Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? >> Posted on March 4, 2013 >> by WashingtonsBlog >> Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent >> >> We reportedlast year: >> >> The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams >> have been deployed against them. See this, >> this, >> thisand >> this . >> >> As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law >> School notes >> : >> >> This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with >> language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. >> >> *The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on >> political dissent **just like China and Russia >> **.* >> >> We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to >> do with security >> . >> >> The Verge reportedlast month: >> >> In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announceda sweeping executive >> orderimplementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for >> intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber >> threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical >> infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of >> whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in >> four months, by June 12. >> >> *** >> >> “Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur >> through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House >> National Security Council, in an email to *The Verge*. “Such threats >> include web site defacement, espionage,* theft of intellectual property*, >> denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.” >> >> *** >> >> “The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical >> infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote. >> >> The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), >> passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what >> created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still >> reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the >> nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its >> definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means >> any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or >> potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…” >> >> But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is >> considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 >> bill , also passed in >> response to September 11, which reads: >> >> “The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether >> physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or >> destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on >> security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or >> any combination of those matters.” >> >> This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s >> cybersecurity orderas originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to >> be relying to some degree on circular reasoningwhen it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the >> right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, >> are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to >> include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, >> such as agriculture.” >> >> In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the >> agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the >> order, includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking >> to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a >> broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is >> reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all >> businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its >> unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against >> cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the >> expertise and ability to do so. >> >> It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror >> lawsto help giant businesses … and to crush >> those who speak out against their abusive practices, >> labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy >> . >> This entry was posted in Business / Economics, >> Politics / World News. >> Bookmark the permalink. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 4 23:54:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:24:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: The OECD has several papers on this that discuss the issue in more detail. It depends on the threat perception for each installation deemed to be critical infrastructure as to how various of its IT assets are classified and restricted, or unclassified and left relatively open. --srs (iPad) On 05-Mar-2013, at 10:09, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > For sure. But does that make those computers and servers "critical infrastructure"? If disabled, they compromise the viability of the country? Or only the IT infrastructure directly connected to the dam or power plant in question (to quote just the things that were not prospective, i.e. 'new plane', 'new industrial process')? > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> You will find that are strictly enforced controls about keeping data within the usa and restricting access only to US citizens with a mandatory security clearance >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 5 March 2013 9:45:31 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >>> The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad? >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> The proposal to set up a clearinghouse for Internet threat data is actually a good one. And seems to have nothing to do with either copyright infringement. >>>> >>>> What can be considered critical infrastructure is necessarily a broad definition, >>>> >>>> The article doesn't connect the dots between that and copyright infringement. IP theft .. what do you call it when a computer network is penetrated and the plans for a new fighter plane, control data for a dam or power plant, blueprints for a new industrial process etc stolen? >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 04-Mar-2013, at 21:47, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? >>>>> >>>>> Posted on March 4, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog >>>>> Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent >>>>> >>>>> We reported last year: >>>>> >>>>> The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this. >>>>> >>>>> As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes: >>>>> >>>>> This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. >>>>> >>>>> The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia. >>>>> >>>>> We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security. >>>>> >>>>> The Verge reported last month: >>>>> >>>>> In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweeping executive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12. >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> “Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage, theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.” >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> “The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote. >>>>> >>>>> The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…” >>>>> >>>>> But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads: >>>>> >>>>> “The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” >>>>> >>>>> This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.” >>>>> >>>>> In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industries in its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so. >>>>> >>>>> It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy. >>>>> >>>>> This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink. >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Diego R. Canabarro >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >>> >>> -- >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >>> Skype: diegocanabarro >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >>> -- > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Mar 5 00:27:24 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:57:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? >> >> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. McTim Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN should not do it? What is your view? Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Mar 5 00:41:26 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 05:41:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? >> >> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. McTim Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN should not do it? What is your view? Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Mar 5 01:07:00 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 07:07:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Catalog of the mass surveillance industry Message-ID: A shopping list of active providers: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/meet_the_contractors_turning_americas_police_into_a_paramilitary_force/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 In addition to well known big names, ATT, Boeing, Facebook, Google, NSA, etc. Creeping police State. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Mar 5 01:45:17 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:45:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential / Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism? In-Reply-To: References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2734769D-346C-457B-8755-C0CC3AEF5FD6@istaff.org> On 5 March 2013 9:45:31 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > The mere fact of storing that classified information makes the computer part of the "critical infrastructure of a country"? How to deal with the fact that R&D in the US is heavily conducted by contractors? Are the computers of RAND, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon part of the critical infrastructure of the US? And if those computers are located abroad? Diego - The new cyber security directive may (or may not) have significant implications for unclassified systems which are considered potentially "critical infrastructure" (even privately owned/operated) but as far as I am aware, it doesn't meaningfully change obligations for systems which contain USG classified information, as there have always been significant controls which govern such systems and which contractors have been obligated to comply with at all times regardless of the system location. (Reference: USG DoD Regulation 5200.1, Dec 1997 or updated 5200.1-R, Feb 2012) The typical corporate computers and networks of contractors and researchers are highly unlikely to contain classified information (as there is a formal process involved in getting approved for such and they are kept isolated from unclassified and Internet connections) so this really isn't any meaningful expansion of scope by the new cyber security directive (at least with respect to classified systems.) FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 04:48:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:48:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> CA I rather like it because /it sounds like/ McTim is for specialisation in comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc - so it has the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim (I have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on this list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used, a matter I would like to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and leave no doubt). The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at CIR, is pretty much US based. Now, if the US has the institutional framework, and the rest of the world must specialise in their comparative advantage, then it seems to operate much like the early British policy to the US - free trade in the name of comparative advantage was known by many USers as a policy so that the UK could continue to be the then workshop of the world, while the States would produce raw materials for the mother country. It is no wonder there are often disagreements, as this relates to first principles. If one steps outside of the free markets pantheon, then it becomes clear that free trade type arguments have typically been deployed by those in the lead to prevent others from rising up. As the one US Congressman put it about free trade, the mantra they could not accept was, 'do as I say, not as I did'... and the British at the time were known to specialise in being rich while others specialised in being poor. Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity requires *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers of producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many levels of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is relevant because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the theoretical values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are needed as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical; avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and the relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people at a disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or natural science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective Archimedean point in matters social. In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception of the CIR and Internet as a market (confusing what is with what ought), and fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these types of ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the advantages. What a tangled web we weave... Riaz On 2013/03/05 03:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Now this is a terrible comparison -- brie is French, the Internet the > last time I looked is universal... Calm down, McTim :) > > --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 5 05:02:16 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:02:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5135C2A8.4090109@cafonso.ca> Sorry, McT, but if this is one of the "insignificant factoids", why do you care to know about the 74% number? --c.a. On 03/05/2013 01:14 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hi McT, >> >> I have to ask: what is a "factoid" in this case? An undesirable fact? > > > just insignificant, or devoid of context, not undesirable. > > In addition, I'd like to know where the 74% number comes from. I am > thinking that that % probably includes Afilias, which most people > think of as a US company, but they are 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Mar 5 05:11:41 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:11:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva References: Message-ID: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc… Begin forwarded message: > > > Wi-Fi at the Palais > The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 conferences were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side some 1550 officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 visitors cross. > > The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you that in addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in the Palace are now fully covered by Wi-Fi. > The designation « Internet » corresponds to the WiFi network in use at the Palais des Nations. > The official designation will be « UNOG-Public-WiFi » as of 18 March 2013 at 7a.m. > > > > Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, allowing constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, smartphones, tablets or laptops. > > From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from the following areas: > > • Pregny Gate > > • Press Bar > > • Delegates Bar > > • Palette Bar > > • Serpent Bar > > • Library > > • Cafeteria > > • Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria > > • Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar > > • Hall Door 4 > > • Hall Door 6 > > • Hall 13-15 > > • Hall 14 > > • Hall des Pas Perdus > > • Hall Building E - 2nd floor > > • Hall Building E - 3rd Floor > > • Restaurant 8th floor > > • Visitors Service Hall > > • Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms > > > A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under study for 2013. > > This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in front of the library and the cafeteria. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 05:40:06 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:40:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Finally! Fouad On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June > for IGF, CSTD, etc… > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > *Wi-Fi at the Palais* > > The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 conferences > were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side some 1550 > officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 visitors cross. > > The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you that in > addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in the Palace are > now fully covered by Wi-Fi. > The designation « Internet » corresponds to the WiFi network in use at > the Palais des Nations. > > The official designation will be « UNOG-Public-WiFi » as of 18 March > 2013 at 7a.m. > > > Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, allowing > constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, smartphones, > tablets or laptops. > > From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from the > following areas: > > • Pregny Gate > > • Press Bar > > • Delegates Bar > > • Palette Bar > > • Serpent Bar > > • Library > > • Cafeteria > > • Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria > > • Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar > > • Hall Door 4 > > • Hall Door 6 > > • Hall 13-15 > > • Hall 14 > > • Hall des Pas Perdus > > • Hall Building E - 2nd floor > > • Hall Building E - 3rd Floor > > • Restaurant 8th floor > > • Visitors Service Hall > > • Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms > > A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under study > for 2013. > > This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in front > of the library and the cafeteria. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 05:58:36 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 02:58:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1362481116.76868.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi Guru, >Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN should not do it? What is your view? Thank you for your interesting question, ICANN has the capacity to look after the public interest, but as it has established monopolistic competition of new gTLDs by the support of business constituencies, the community support initiatives or cause has been overlooked and completely disregarded. Public interest was ignored (first time) when the huge cost of the new gTLD application was announced. Again when a fund was established for community support instead of allowing them a nominal fee. Public interest and developing economies were neglected when the awarenesscampaign was launched primarily in the key market area/citiesof developed economies, where $750,000 of awareness campaign were spend.   Have you checked that how much gTLDs were applied by a single company TLDH (perhaps belongs to ICANN’s Ex-Chairman) Now what is the cost to initiate an objection, it is affordable to the individuals or CSO from DE or LDC.ICANN has defined a mechanism to initiate objection through IO (Independent Objector) but he is answerable to ICANN Board or GAC to initiate or not any objection in public interest. If IO does not perform his role, no one will lead to proceed the objection. BR   Imran >________________________________ > From: Guru गुरु >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:27 >Subject: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > >On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>> The demonstration is clear. >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>> days. >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>> >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>> anything to do with this issue? >>> >>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >> ICANN has a very narrow remit.  Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >McTim > >Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN >should not do it? What is your view? > >Guru > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Mar 5 06:17:31 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:17:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5135D44B.8060700@digsys.bg> On 05.03.13 00:09, McTim wrote: > The business case for running a TLD registry is less clear to them > (and to me). Would you risk 185k USD on the off chance you would win > the rights to sell registrations under a specific word? Indeed. It is very easy to spend someone else's money and the situation we observe is just an indicator that in the US there is still plenty of speculative funding. It also shows that folk in the "developing" countries know better where to put their resources. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 5 06:18:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:18:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> What's the situation with regard to electric power in the older conference rooms? Has that issue been fixed too? Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:11:41 +0100 schrieb William Drake : > Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in > May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc… > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > Wi-Fi at the Palais > > The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 > > conferences were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side > > some 1550 officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 > > visitors cross. > > > > The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you > > that in addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in > > the Palace are now fully covered by Wi-Fi. The designation « > > Internet » corresponds to the WiFi network in use at the Palais > > des Nations. The official designation will be « UNOG-Public-WiFi » > > as of 18 March 2013 at 7a.m. > > > > > > > > Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, > > allowing constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, > > smartphones, tablets or laptops. > > > > From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from > > the following areas: > > > > • Pregny Gate > > > > • Press Bar > > > > • Delegates Bar > > > > • Palette Bar > > > > • Serpent Bar > > > > • Library > > > > • Cafeteria > > > > • Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria > > > > • Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar > > > > • Hall Door 4 > > > > • Hall Door 6 > > > > • Hall 13-15 > > > > • Hall 14 > > > > • Hall des Pas Perdus > > > > • Hall Building E - 2nd floor > > > > • Hall Building E - 3rd Floor > > > > • Restaurant 8th floor > > > > • Visitors Service Hall > > > > • Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms > > > > > > A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under > > study for 2013. > > > > This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in > > front of the library and the cafeteria. > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Tue Mar 5 06:19:44 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:19:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: No. That would be a major construction undertaking. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email: nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton On 5 March 2013 12:18, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What's the situation with regard to electric power in the older > conference rooms? Has that issue been fixed too? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:11:41 +0100 > schrieb William Drake : > > > Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in > > May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc… > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > > > > Wi-Fi at the Palais > > > The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 > > > conferences were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side > > > some 1550 officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 > > > visitors cross. > > > > > > The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you > > > that in addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in > > > the Palace are now fully covered by Wi-Fi. The designation « > > > Internet » corresponds to the WiFi network in use at the Palais > > > des Nations. The official designation will be « UNOG-Public-WiFi » > > > as of 18 March 2013 at 7a.m. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, > > > allowing constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, > > > smartphones, tablets or laptops. > > > > > > From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from > > > the following areas: > > > > > > • Pregny Gate > > > > > > • Press Bar > > > > > > • Delegates Bar > > > > > > • Palette Bar > > > > > > • Serpent Bar > > > > > > • Library > > > > > > • Cafeteria > > > > > > • Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria > > > > > > • Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar > > > > > > • Hall Door 4 > > > > > > • Hall Door 6 > > > > > > • Hall 13-15 > > > > > > • Hall 14 > > > > > > • Hall des Pas Perdus > > > > > > • Hall Building E - 2nd floor > > > > > > • Hall Building E - 3rd Floor > > > > > > • Restaurant 8th floor > > > > > > • Visitors Service Hall > > > > > > • Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms > > > > > > > > > A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under > > > study for 2013. > > > > > > This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in > > > front of the library and the cafeteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 06:35:19 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:35:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Alejandro, >ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. You are right that ICANN is taking care for of number of public-interest issues, but the criterion of objection is limited; ICANN commitment for compliance is further limited as the resolutions and arbitration functions are delegated to third parties. With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah   >________________________________ > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु >Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 >Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > >Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), > >ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. > >Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? > >If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? > >Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? > >Alejandro Pisanty > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >    Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >Facultad de Química UNAM >Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > >+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > >+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . > >________________________________________ >Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] >Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 >Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > >On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>> The demonstration is clear. >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>> days. >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>> >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>> anything to do with this issue? >>> >>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >> ICANN has a very narrow remit.  Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >McTim > >Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN >should not do it? What is your view? > >Guru > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 5 07:03:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:33:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <13d3a6f46dc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> CcTLDs are autonomous and in some cases at least under the administration of government departments in various countries. Proposals that they submit to icann governance and icann notions of public interest will be interesting --srs (htc one x) On 5 March 2013 5:05:19 PM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Alejandro, > >ICANN takes care of > a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract > compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its > restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD > contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest > and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the > community is in protest through known speakers and writers. > You are right > that ICANN is taking care for of number of public-interest issues, but the > criterion of objection is limited; ICANN commitment for compliance is further > limited as the resolutions and arbitration functions are delegated to third > parties. > With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there > are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN has no > performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s > Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed > from separate > country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. ICANN > policies > does not support public interest over here. > > Regards >   > Imran Ahmed Shah >   > > >________________________________ > > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Guru गुरु > >Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 > >Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > > >Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), > > > >ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry > and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant > and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has > also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement > in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some > companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in > protest through known speakers and writers. > > > >Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN > engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials > science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated > mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? > > > >If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get > something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate > corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not > allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and > ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying > taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' > countries of incorporation) likes? > > > >Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made > claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? > > > >Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >    Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > >Facultad de Química UNAM > >Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > > >+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > >+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > >Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ > >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > >Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > >Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ > >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . > > > >________________________________________ > >Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु > [Guru at ITforChange.net] > >Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 > >Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > > >On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Sala, > >>> > >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > >>> The demonstration is clear. > >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > >>> days. > >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. > >>> > >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > >>> anything to do with this issue? > >>> > >>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > >> ICANN has a very narrow remit.  Asking them to police where > >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. > >McTim > > > >Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN > >should not do it? What is your view? > > > >Guru > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 08:11:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:11:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru, On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>> The demonstration is clear. >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>> days. >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>> >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>> anything to do with this issue? >>> >>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >> >> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > McTim > > Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN > should not do it? What is your view? I never said that, that was Dominique ("ICANN has not anything to do with public interest.") being facetious. I am pleased there is a PIC being put in place. As far as international taxation issues, perhaps it is time for an IGO to take this in hand, or perhaps a new MS body? I do know however that it (tax havens) shouldn't be part of ICANN's scope. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 08:34:17 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:34:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > CA > > I rather like it because it sounds like McTim is for specialisation in > comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc - Sounds like you are trying to put words into my mouth ...again! so it has > the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox > economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim In truth, I think that CIRs (names and numbers) should be available based on a cost recovery basis. However, that horse left the barn some decades ago in the names world, and the numbering horse seems to be charging for the door like its tail is on fire at the moment. (I > have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on this > list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used like you have done once again in this mail ;-/ , a matter I would like > to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to open > one's mouth and leave no doubt). > > The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at CIR, > is pretty much US based. Except for the 4 RIRs NOT based in the USA (and the 10's of thousands of LIRs that are their members), the 192 ccTLDs NOT based in the USA, the AfTLD, LACTLD, etc, etc. ICANN is setting up real HQ hubs in Turkey and Singapore, there is a real push to internationalize the organisation. Why would we demonise and oppose this? We should celebrate it, as it is exactly what we have been asking for! > Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity requires > *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers of > producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many levels > of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is relevant > because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the theoretical > values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are needed > as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and > realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical; > avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and the > relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people at a > disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or natural > science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective > Archimedean point in matters social. > > In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception of > the CIR and Internet as a market There are multiple markets that make up the Internet, even within the categories of CIRs. To deny this is to deny reality. I don't see your point here. (confusing what is with what ought), and > fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these types of > ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the > advantages. > How would you adjust the situation? Today there is a meeting in Addis of the African folks involved in ICANN/DNS industry trying to build more interest in the DNS ecosystem in Africa. I welcome this initiative. ICANN is spending many millions of USD on Outreach and Engagement. Would you prefer they don'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 apisan at unam.mx Tue Mar 5 09:05:49 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:05:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Imran, the beauty of the system is that you can go to an ICANN meeting or submit propossals through the online fora and fix the part you don't like. It seems that you would like a. for ICANN to do the arbitration itself instead of through expert bodies, and b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. These are pretty clear propositions. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Imran Ahmed Shah [ias_pk at yahoo.com] Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 05:35 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Dear Alejandro, >ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. You are right that ICANN is taking care for of number of public-interest issues, but the criterion of objection is limited; ICANN commitment for compliance is further limited as the resolutions and arbitration functions are delegated to third parties. With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? >> >> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. McTim Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN should not do it? What is your view? Guru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 09:06:52 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:06:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> CA >> >> I rather like it because it sounds like McTim is for specialisation in >> comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc - > > Sounds like you are trying to put words into my mouth ...again! "sounds like" if I were to locate your comment theoretically. > > > so it has >> the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox >> economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim > In truth, I think that CIRs (names and numbers) should be available > based on a cost recovery basis. However, that horse left the barn > some decades ago in the names world, and the numbering horse seems to > be charging for the door like its tail is on fire at the moment. See is an ought, then perhaps an oligopolistic or monopolistic analysis then would be more appropriate? 'Defending' the status quo or a market orientation would require some caveats because of the objective control CIR institutions exert directly or indirectly. > > (I >> have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on this >> list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used > > like you have done once again in this mail ;-/ See first response. I'll bide my time, I think I am onto something. But always happy to be surprised. After all, follow the market is quite a revolutionary idea, and I did not take you for one of those. The market can take you up the dotcom curve, to a resounding splat... and of course, if we include network effects and first mover advantages, then even the concept of a market based approach presumes a position on these uncompetitive advantages... after all if prices are not RIGHT, how can the market function on such signals... > > > , a matter I would like >> to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to open >> one's mouth and leave no doubt). >> >> The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at CIR, >> is pretty much US based. > Except for the 4 RIRs NOT based in the USA (and the 10's of thousands > of LIRs that are their members), the 192 ccTLDs NOT based in the USA, > the AfTLD, LACTLD, etc, etc. And the applicable law, and powers of recall to delegations? > ICANN is setting up real HQ hubs in Turkey and Singapore, there is a > real push to internationalize the organisation. Why would we demonise > and oppose this? We should celebrate it, as it is exactly what we have > been asking for! is and ought, sets and venn diagrams. I am not part of your 'we'. > > Some peoples garbage are others treasure. Nice to have the dialectic. My nonsense asserts that market orientation underrates the inherently political character of these arrangements that serve dominant interests. I can see why we must differ. > >> Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity requires >> *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers of >> producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many levels >> of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is relevant >> because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the theoretical >> values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are needed >> as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and >> realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical; >> avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and the >> relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people at a >> disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or natural >> science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective >> Archimedean point in matters social. >> >> In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception of >> the CIR and Internet as a market > There are multiple markets that make up the Internet, even within the > categories of CIRs. To deny this is to deny reality. I don't see > your point here. Control and power - see point above about political construction of markets. Simple. The analogy you make here would be called in mainstream economic terms 'shadow prices' (if one were to dispense with monopoly/oligopoly as above). These markets are political constructions even if delegated with some autonomy. > > > (confusing what is with what ought), and >> fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these types of >> ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the >> advantages. >> > How would you adjust the situation? Today there is a meeting in Addis > of the African folks involved in ICANN/DNS industry trying to build > more interest in the DNS ecosystem in Africa. I welcome this > initiative. ICANN is spending many millions of USD on Outreach and > Engagement. Would you prefer they don't? > Ah the appearance of what is the alternative. Unlike Reagan and Thatcher who implied there is no alternative TINA, there are hundreds of alternatives. ICANN et al will do whatever they do, as they must. To wit, In 1985 in South Africa the apartheid government gave representation to Indians and Coloured in South Africa to boost their race credentials. Did not help in terms of race legitimacy. Then we also have to deal with how the ICANN system looks after its own... with its troops of single rooters etc ever ready to push a line defending the status quo with some ad hoc changes. So technically it may be good, I can concede that, no institution is completely one thing or another. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 09:54:16 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:54:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Riaz, I can't parse any of your replies below, so I won't try to reply. Instead, as an exercise in capacity building, I will try to answer the original question (who owns the new gTLDs?) posed in this thread. The answer is that no one "owns" them. Domain names are delegated to registrants. It's more like a "lease" than "ownership". This is the case for multiple and single-roots. It also describes the situation for numbering resources more adequately than ownership. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> >>> CA >>> >>> I rather like it because it sounds like McTim is for specialisation in >>> comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc - >> >> >> Sounds like you are trying to put words into my mouth ...again! > > > "sounds like" if I were to locate your comment theoretically. > > >> >> >> so it has >>> >>> the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox >>> economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim >> >> In truth, I think that CIRs (names and numbers) should be available >> based on a cost recovery basis. However, that horse left the barn >> some decades ago in the names world, and the numbering horse seems to >> be charging for the door like its tail is on fire at the moment. > > > See is an ought, then perhaps an oligopolistic or monopolistic analysis then > would be more appropriate? 'Defending' the status quo or a market > orientation would require some caveats because of the objective control CIR > institutions exert directly or indirectly. > > >> >> (I >>> >>> have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on this >>> list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used >> >> >> like you have done once again in this mail ;-/ > > > See first response. > > I'll bide my time, I think I am onto something. But always happy to be > surprised. After all, follow the market is quite a revolutionary idea, and I > did not take you for one of those. The market can take you up the dotcom > curve, to a resounding splat... and of course, if we include network effects > and first mover advantages, then even the concept of a market based approach > presumes a position on these uncompetitive advantages... after all if prices > are not RIGHT, how can the market function on such signals... > > >> >> >> , a matter I would like >>> >>> to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to >>> open >>> one's mouth and leave no doubt). >>> >>> The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at >>> CIR, >>> is pretty much US based. >> >> Except for the 4 RIRs NOT based in the USA (and the 10's of thousands >> of LIRs that are their members), the 192 ccTLDs NOT based in the USA, >> the AfTLD, LACTLD, etc, etc. > > > And the applicable law, and powers of recall to delegations? > > >> ICANN is setting up real HQ hubs in Turkey and Singapore, there is a >> real push to internationalize the organisation. Why would we demonise >> and oppose this? We should celebrate it, as it is exactly what we have >> been asking for! > > > is and ought, sets and venn diagrams. I am not part of your 'we'. > >> >> > > > Some peoples garbage are others treasure. Nice to have the dialectic. My > nonsense asserts that market orientation underrates the inherently political > character of these arrangements that serve dominant interests. I can see why > we must differ. > > >> >>> Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity >>> requires >>> *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers >>> of >>> producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many >>> levels >>> of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is >>> relevant >>> because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the >>> theoretical >>> values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are >>> needed >>> as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and >>> realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical; >>> avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and >>> the >>> relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people >>> at a >>> disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or >>> natural >>> science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective >>> Archimedean point in matters social. >>> >>> In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception of >>> the CIR and Internet as a market >> >> There are multiple markets that make up the Internet, even within the >> categories of CIRs. To deny this is to deny reality. I don't see >> your point here. > > > Control and power - see point above about political construction of markets. > Simple. The analogy you make here would be called in mainstream economic > terms 'shadow prices' (if one were to dispense with monopoly/oligopoly as > above). These markets are political constructions even if delegated with > some autonomy. > > >> >> >> (confusing what is with what ought), and >>> >>> fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these types >>> of >>> ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the >>> advantages. >>> >> How would you adjust the situation? Today there is a meeting in Addis >> of the African folks involved in ICANN/DNS industry trying to build >> more interest in the DNS ecosystem in Africa. I welcome this >> initiative. ICANN is spending many millions of USD on Outreach and >> Engagement. Would you prefer they don't? >> > Ah the appearance of what is the alternative. Unlike Reagan and Thatcher who > implied there is no alternative TINA, there are hundreds of alternatives. > ICANN et al will do whatever they do, as they must. To wit, In 1985 in South > Africa the apartheid government gave representation to Indians and Coloured > in South Africa to boost their race credentials. Did not help in terms of > race legitimacy. Then we also have to deal with how the ICANN system looks > after its own... with its troops of single rooters etc ever ready to push a > line defending the status quo with some ad hoc changes. So technically it > may be good, I can concede that, no institution is completely one thing or > another. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Mar 5 10:17:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:17:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1362481116.76868.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <1362481116.76868.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: HI Imran, On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > individuals or CSO from DE or LDC. ICANN has defined a mechanism to initiate > objection through IO (Independent Objector) but he is answerable to ICANN > Board or GAC to initiate or not any objection in public interest. FYI, the office of the IO is completely independent. He/She is NOT answerable to the staff/CEO or Board (or the GAC for that matter). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 10:35:36 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:35:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> Message-ID: Lo revolucionario para el ICANN sería adoptar una Internacionalización de un código Continental y dentro de ellos sub-códigos para los países de ese Continente, para los futuros (gTLD) y demás aplicaciones. Otro sería que ICANN se Internacionalicé, que sea un ente autónomo, tener centros o sedes en todos los Continentes y todo el personal que lo represente o trabajen deben rotar en todas las sedes o centros del ICANN *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/5 McTim > Hi Riaz, > > I can't parse any of your replies below, so I won't try to reply. > > Instead, as an exercise in capacity building, I will try to answer the > original question (who owns the new gTLDs?) posed in this thread. > > The answer is that no one "owns" them. Domain names are delegated to > registrants. It's more like a "lease" than "ownership". This is the > case for multiple and single-roots. It also describes the situation > for numbering resources more adequately than ownership. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > >>> > >>> CA > >>> > >>> I rather like it because it sounds like McTim is for specialisation in > >>> comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc - > >> > >> > >> Sounds like you are trying to put words into my mouth ...again! > > > > > > "sounds like" if I were to locate your comment theoretically. > > > > > >> > >> > >> so it has > >>> > >>> the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox > >>> economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim > >> > >> In truth, I think that CIRs (names and numbers) should be available > >> based on a cost recovery basis. However, that horse left the barn > >> some decades ago in the names world, and the numbering horse seems to > >> be charging for the door like its tail is on fire at the moment. > > > > > > See is an ought, then perhaps an oligopolistic or monopolistic analysis > then > > would be more appropriate? 'Defending' the status quo or a market > > orientation would require some caveats because of the objective control > CIR > > institutions exert directly or indirectly. > > > > > >> > >> (I > >>> > >>> have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on > this > >>> list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used > >> > >> > >> like you have done once again in this mail ;-/ > > > > > > See first response. > > > > I'll bide my time, I think I am onto something. But always happy to be > > surprised. After all, follow the market is quite a revolutionary idea, > and I > > did not take you for one of those. The market can take you up the dotcom > > curve, to a resounding splat... and of course, if we include network > effects > > and first mover advantages, then even the concept of a market based > approach > > presumes a position on these uncompetitive advantages... after all if > prices > > are not RIGHT, how can the market function on such signals... > > > > > >> > >> > >> , a matter I would like > >>> > >>> to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to > >>> open > >>> one's mouth and leave no doubt). > >>> > >>> The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at > >>> CIR, > >>> is pretty much US based. > >> > >> Except for the 4 RIRs NOT based in the USA (and the 10's of thousands > >> of LIRs that are their members), the 192 ccTLDs NOT based in the USA, > >> the AfTLD, LACTLD, etc, etc. > > > > > > And the applicable law, and powers of recall to delegations? > > > > > >> ICANN is setting up real HQ hubs in Turkey and Singapore, there is a > >> real push to internationalize the organisation. Why would we demonise > >> and oppose this? We should celebrate it, as it is exactly what we have > >> been asking for! > > > > > > is and ought, sets and venn diagrams. I am not part of your 'we'. > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Some peoples garbage are others treasure. Nice to have the dialectic. My > > nonsense asserts that market orientation underrates the inherently > political > > character of these arrangements that serve dominant interests. I can see > why > > we must differ. > > > > > >> > >>> Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity > >>> requires > >>> *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers > >>> of > >>> producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many > >>> levels > >>> of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is > >>> relevant > >>> because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the > >>> theoretical > >>> values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are > >>> needed > >>> as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and > >>> realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical; > >>> avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and > >>> the > >>> relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people > >>> at a > >>> disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or > >>> natural > >>> science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective > >>> Archimedean point in matters social. > >>> > >>> In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception > of > >>> the CIR and Internet as a market > >> > >> There are multiple markets that make up the Internet, even within the > >> categories of CIRs. To deny this is to deny reality. I don't see > >> your point here. > > > > > > Control and power - see point above about political construction of > markets. > > Simple. The analogy you make here would be called in mainstream economic > > terms 'shadow prices' (if one were to dispense with monopoly/oligopoly as > > above). These markets are political constructions even if delegated with > > some autonomy. > > > > > >> > >> > >> (confusing what is with what ought), and > >>> > >>> fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these > types > >>> of > >>> ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the > >>> advantages. > >>> > >> How would you adjust the situation? Today there is a meeting in Addis > >> of the African folks involved in ICANN/DNS industry trying to build > >> more interest in the DNS ecosystem in Africa. I welcome this > >> initiative. ICANN is spending many millions of USD on Outreach and > >> Engagement. Would you prefer they don't? > >> > > Ah the appearance of what is the alternative. Unlike Reagan and Thatcher > who > > implied there is no alternative TINA, there are hundreds of alternatives. > > ICANN et al will do whatever they do, as they must. To wit, In 1985 in > South > > Africa the apartheid government gave representation to Indians and > Coloured > > in South Africa to boost their race credentials. Did not help in terms of > > race legitimacy. Then we also have to deal with how the ICANN system > looks > > after its own... with its troops of single rooters etc ever ready to > push a > > line defending the status quo with some ad hoc changes. So technically it > > may be good, I can concede that, no institution is completely one thing > or > > another. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 5 12:06:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:06:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: >> What's the situation with regard to electric power in the older >> conference rooms? Has that issue been fixed too? Nick Ashton-Hart replied: > No. That would be a major construction undertaking. At least at UNESCO in Paris, it was possible to address this issue while avoiding a major construction undertaking: At the WSIS+10 review meeting in Paris, some of the conference rooms had electric power built into the desks, while in other conference rooms, access to electricity was provided by means of power strips that were distributed throughout the room. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 12:11:17 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:11:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IP-Watch=3A_=E2=80=9CWorks_for_Hire?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D_A_Key_Issue_As_Music_Stars_Begin_Terminating_Copyrigh?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_Transfers?= In-Reply-To: <201303051617.r25GHIiJ019912@imu289.infomaniak.ch> References: <201303051617.r25GHIiJ019912@imu289.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <51362735.3050503@gmail.com> An interesting development. Are we seeing the emergence of a sector specific approach to IPRs in the US? And will this be part of the US exceptional situation or exported as part of the functional development of IPRs? Wonder how this will be viewed from the laissez faire normative perspective also. This is posted because of potential implications of IPR-censorship issues and or IPR control on the net, and the political economy of how this plays out. Riaz ******************************************************************************************************** March 05, 2013. “Works for Hire” A Key Issue As Music Stars Begin Terminating Copyright Transfers Courts in the United States are beginning to interpret a Copyright Act of 1976 provision allowing authors of protected works to terminate their rights assignments beginning this year. Intellectual property attorneys appear to differ over the importance of the recent rulings, but they agree that the battle line in termination cases between the recording industry and artists will be drawn over whether or not a piece of music was created for hire. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=27116&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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Mar 5 12:13:15 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:13:15 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> You mean "the 21st century", right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I believe, and I don't think it has been widely in use much before 2000. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: 05 March 2013 11:12 An: Governance Betreff: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc. Begin forwarded message: Wi-Fi at the Palais The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 conferences were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side some 1550 officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 visitors cross. The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you that in addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in the Palace are now fully covered by Wi-Fi. The designation < Internet > corresponds to the WiFi network in use at the Palais des Nations. The official designation will be < UNOG-Public-WiFi > as of 18 March 2013 at 7a.m. Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, allowing constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, smartphones, tablets or laptops. >From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from the following areas: . Pregny Gate . Press Bar . Delegates Bar . Palette Bar . Serpent Bar . Library . Cafeteria . Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria . Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar . Hall Door 4 . Hall Door 6 . Hall 13-15 . Hall 14 . Hall des Pas Perdus . Hall Building E - 2nd floor . Hall Building E - 3rd Floor . Restaurant 8th floor . Visitors Service Hall . Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under study for 2013. This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in front of the library and the cafeteria. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 5 12:16:20 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:16:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] international taxation issues (was Re: who owns the new gTLDs?) In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <20130305181620.0090c6ff@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > As far as international taxation issues, perhaps it is time for an IGO > to take this in hand, or perhaps a new MS body? > > I do know however that it (tax havens) shouldn't be part of ICANN's > scope. +1 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Mar 5 12:24:54 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:24:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>,<007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8CA5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Well... Bill's right since IEEE's 1st 802.11 standard was completed in 1997. But Peter's also right since the vendors didn't come up with the snazzy WiFi logo and branding for products meeting the specs til the 2000s. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Peter H. Hellmonds [peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:13 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'William Drake' Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva You mean “the 21st century”, right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I believe, and I don’t think it has been widely in use much before 2000. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: 05 March 2013 11:12 An: Governance Betreff: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc… Begin forwarded message: Wi-Fi at the Palais The Palais des Nations in Geneva is a building where 9'962 conferences were held in 31 of its rooms in 2011 where side by side some 1550 officials, delegates from 184 Missions and 97'192 visitors cross. The Information and Communication Technology Service announces you that in addition to conference rooms, all important common areas in the Palace are now fully covered by Wi-Fi. The designation « Internet » corresponds to the WiFi network in use at the Palais des Nations. The official designation will be « UNOG-Public-WiFi » as of 18 March 2013 at 7a.m. Wi-Fi has become essential for wireless access to information, allowing constant communication through the usage of mobile phones, smartphones, tablets or laptops. >From now on, delegates or officials can always access the web from the following areas: • Pregny Gate • Press Bar • Delegates Bar • Palette Bar • Serpent Bar • Library • Cafeteria • Corridor between door 6 and cafeteria • Corridor between the third floor of Building E and Delegates bar • Hall Door 4 • Hall Door 6 • Hall 13-15 • Hall 14 • Hall des Pas Perdus • Hall Building E - 2nd floor • Hall Building E - 3rd Floor • Restaurant 8th floor • Visitors Service Hall • Staff Development and Learning Section Rooms A second phase aiming at a larger coverage of the building is under study for 2013. This would cover a large number of offices and also a park area in front of the library and the cafeteria. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Mar 5 12:34:40 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:34:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> ,<20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Norbert, we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire and other safety codes. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 11:06 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva I had written: >> What's the situation with regard to electric power in the older >> conference rooms? Has that issue been fixed too? Nick Ashton-Hart replied: > No. That would be a major construction undertaking. At least at UNESCO in Paris, it was possible to address this issue while avoiding a major construction undertaking: At the WSIS+10 review meeting in Paris, some of the conference rooms had electric power built into the desks, while in other conference rooms, access to electricity was provided by means of power strips that were distributed throughout the room. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Tue Mar 5 15:17:25 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:17:25 +1300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <513652D5.5090504@internetnz.net.nz> The idea of "ownership" of domain names is being constantly tested in various courts around the world, and there are strong indications that there are aspects of ownership, and aspects of property rights that exist over a domain name. Ellen Rony has penned an excellent resource at http://www.domainhandbook.com/property.html and some of the court decisions referred to are fascinating. At the basis of domain name delegations, RFC1591 clearly states: "Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community." And this is specifically referring to Top Level Domains. Many TLD operators assert strongly in their terms and conditions to registrants that there is no transfer of ownership when acquiring a domain name. Yet the courts seem to more frequently find there are elements of ownership. Its therefore not quite so easy to give a definitive "owned" vs "not owned" answer... The answer is likely to arise on a country by country basis depending on the legal precedents being established, rather than on a global basis. It may be, in the fullness of time, TLD operators may have to have different terms and conditions for registrants based on their geographic location. Cheers Keith On 6/03/2013 3:54 a.m., McTim wrote: > The answer is that no one "owns" them. Domain names are delegated to > registrants. It's more like a "lease" than "ownership". This is the > case for multiple and single-roots. It also describes the situation > for numbering resources more adequately than ownership. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 16:40:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:40:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <513652D5.5090504@internetnz.net.nz> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> <513652D5.5090504@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: Hi Keith, Thanks for the nuanced picture. > The idea of "ownership" of domain names is being constantly tested in > various courts around the world, and there are strong indications that there > are aspects of ownership, and aspects of property rights that exist over a > domain name. Ellen Rony has penned an excellent resource at > http://www.domainhandbook.com/property.html and some of the court decisions > referred to are fascinating. At the basis of domain name delegations, > RFC1591 clearly states: > "Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are > inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about > "responsibilities" and "service" to the community." > And this is specifically referring to Top Level Domains. Many TLD operators > assert strongly in their terms and conditions to registrants that there is > no transfer of ownership when acquiring a domain name. Yet the courts seem > to more frequently find there are elements of ownership. > > Its therefore not quite so easy to give a definitive "owned" vs "not owned" > answer... The answer is likely to arise on a country by country basis > depending on the legal precedents being established, rather than on a global > basis. It may be, in the fullness of time, TLD operators may have to have > different terms and conditions for registrants based on their geographic > location. -- 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 Tue Mar 5 20:27:19 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 20:27:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI - Interview with Avri regarding community gTLDs Message-ID: A very interesting and slightly retrospective view of community gTLDs and some aspects of the ICANN gTLD program - FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Mar 5 23:24:36 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:54:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <5136C504.8020409@ITforChange.net> On 03/05/2013 06:41 PM, McTim wrote: > Guru, > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sala, >>>> >>>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>>> The demonstration is clear. >>>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>>> days. >>>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>>> >>>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>>> anything to do with this issue? >>>> >>>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >>> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >>> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >> McTim >> >> Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN >> should not do it? What is your view? > > I never said that, that was Dominique ("ICANN has not anything to do > with public interest.") being facetious. > > I am pleased there is a PIC being put in place. > > As far as international taxation issues, perhaps it is time for an IGO > to take this in hand, or perhaps a new MS body? Apart from international taxation issues, there are several other aspects as mails on this thread have mentioned - the need to have diversity of ownership of GTLDs vs the current extreme concentration, rules of how the gtld 'owners' will deal with requests for domain names with those gtld extensions including support for multilingual features etc etc You say " perhaps it is time for an IGO to take this in hand... or perhaps a new MS body? " Thanks for acknowledging that there is a need for issues like these (we call it 'public interest issues'_ to be dealt with beyond the current 'ICANN' structures can you elaborate how this new body would be accountable and effective in addressing the problems of concentration of ownership and other public interest issues regards, Guru > I do know however that it (tax havens) shouldn't be part of ICANN's scope. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 23:40:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:40:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <5136C504.8020409@ITforChange.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <5136C504.8020409@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru, you misconstrue (or misunderstand my position: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > Apart from international taxation issues, there are several other aspects as > mails on this thread have mentioned - the need to have diversity of > ownership of GTLDs vs the current extreme concentration, Is this a need or a want? rules of how the > gtld 'owners' will deal with requests for domain names with those gtld > extensions including support for multilingual features etc etc I don't understand what you mean here, but I suspect that would be under the new RAA from ICANN. > > You say " perhaps it is time for an IGO to take this in hand... or perhaps a > new MS body? " Thanks for acknowledging that there is a need for issues like > these (we call it 'public interest issues'_ to be dealt with beyond the > current 'ICANN' structures I did not mean in the IG arena (which I think you understand very well). I meant that if people are upset about large companies doing the "double-Dutch-Irish" whatever, then those ppl should go off and do something about it, but it's nowt to do with Internet Governance. > > can you elaborate how this new body would be accountable and effective in > addressing the problems of concentration of ownership and other public > interest issues I am not an expert in int'l taxation. There are lots of folks who know more about it than I do on this list, and about IGO's and how they make rules for int'l corporations. I do know however that it's not an Internet Governance issue, it (international taxation) has been around for a very long time, there are lots of non-Internet companies who have been practicing this kind of tax avoidance for donkeys years, and just because some Internet companies are now doing it doesn't make it a IG issue. -- 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Mar 5 23:43:30 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:13:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <5136C972.5030209@ITforChange.net> On 03/05/2013 11:11 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), then you can call me Gurumurthy > ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. > > Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? > > If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? your mail seems to be a defence of what ICANN does or should do. My question was not about ICANNs defined role, which we seem to agree should not be expanded. I agree that ICANN should not indulge in 'mission creep' as you put it. then who should perform those public interest tasks (few other mails have given instances of public interest aspects other than taxation) that are needed to be performed which are beyond ICANN mandate. Guru > Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] > Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>> The demonstration is clear. >>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>> days. >>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>> >>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>> anything to do with this issue? >>> >>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >> corporations are housed is well out of scope. > McTim > > Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN > should not do it? What is your view? > > Guru > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 6 00:45:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:15:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <5136D800.90802@itforchange.net> Dear Devon, Tracey, Jose, Lillian and Sarah, This is to thank you both for the faith reposed in me and the time and labour given to the task of nomcom-ing which is never easy. If given an opportunity I will do my best to represent the views and interests of the silent majority which I understand is the civil society's primary purpose to do. Best regards, parminder Dear Tracey Naughton, Devon Blake, Jose Felix Arias Ynche, Lillian Nalwoga and Antonio Medina Gómez On Monday 04 March 2013 11:16 PM, Devon Blake wrote: > Dear All, > The following persons are selected for by the nomcom for recomendation > to the CSTD. > Norbort Bollow > Avri Doria > Parminder Jeet Singh > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Jeremy Malcolm > > Congrats to you all. Please note that in order for the proper > information to reach Anriette, we need the following information > immediately. Once received I will send all documentation to Anriette. > If the profile you sent already contains all the info then please > state and I will send as is. > > Thanks to all the Nomcom team for their sterling work on this. > > Regards! > > > Devon > > > Please include: > 1. Your name, email and contact number > 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are > affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity > please provide information on the selection process. > 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your > job title) > 3. Your country of residence > 4. Your nationality and your gender > > Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD > chair in making the final selection: > > 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented > policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also > between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that > people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have > a lot to contribute)? > > 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in > the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general? > > 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings > and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva. > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Sarah Kiden > wrote: > > Devon, > > Does that mean that we have to score again (especially for the > optional criteria)? > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Devon Blake > wrote: > > Dear all > Attached please see my tally on your selections to the CSTD, > There are however some issues. As you will notice there is a > tie between two of the Candidates, Avri and William and only > one more needs to be selected. Also in reviewing your scores I > note that apart from Sarah everyone scored the optional > criteria out of 10 instead of five as agreed. Time is short > and it is critical that we announce the successful candidates > immediately, could you all please look at your scoring and > find a way to break the tie between Avri and William? thanks. > This is urgent. > Regards, > Devon > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear Devon and Members of the NomCom, > > Best wishes in your deliberations as you undertake what is > one of the most important tasks for the IGC this year. > > I wish you well in your work. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Devon Blake > > wrote: > > Thanks Sala, > I will do my best to see the process completed. > Devon > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear Devon, > > Thank you for stepping up. This is a difficult > time as you can imagine. Ginger will also be > available to provide language translation > assistance should it be necessary and your past > experiences in past NomComs will certainly be useful. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Devon Blake > > wrote: > > Dear Sala/Nomcom members, > In order to facilitate the smooth running of > this selection process and to ensure the > process is constitutionally correct, I will > forgo my voting privileges to chair the Nomcom > committee, provided of course that Tracey > keeps her promise and assist. > Devon > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tracey > Naughton > wrote: > > Dear Nomcom Members and Sala, > > Greetings from burning hot Melbourne. > > I have just gone through my emails and > identified the candidates listed below. > Have I missed anyone? > I think we have 8 candidates. > I sent each of these people a note > confirming receipt of their nomination. > The note said: > ------------------------------------- > Dear ....., > > As you may know the Chair of the Nomcom > had to recuse himself and we don't have a > replacement to date. > As a courtesy, and as a member of the > Nomcom, I am just letting you know that > your nomination has been received. > > regards > ------------------------------------- > > *We have nominations from:* > > William Drake > Norbert Bollow > Imran Ahmed Shah > Avri Doria > Parminder Jeet Singh > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > John B. Kavuma > Jeremy Malcolm > > I am *attaching the spreadsheet *I drafted > earlier and we agreed to use in order to > select five candidates. > > In doing this, I am not accepting the role > of Chair. I would like to retain my vote. > I am just hoping to make up some lost time > and keep us moving forward. > > *Does anyone on the Nomcom want to take > over as non-voting Chair?* This would involve: > > - encouraging all Nomcom members to go > through the applications and complete the > spreadsheet, then email it to the Chair > - counting all the spreadsheet results > - facilitating any discussions if there is > a hung result > - reporting to the co-ordinators and IGF > list on the process and outcomes > > I'm prepared to help with that work. > > Tracey > __________________ > Tracey Naughton > (Africa based attendee at preparatory and > official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) > Communication for Development Consultant > Community Engagement and International > Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector > ____________________________________ > based in Victoria, Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > wrote: > > Dear Members of NomCom, > > Warm Greetings! This is to advise that > Deirdre will not be chairing the NomCom. > Since Guru has stepped down, I have asked > Jeremy to remove Guru from the mailing list. > > Deirdre will NOT be the NomCom Independent > Non-Voting Chair and as such we still do > not have an Independent Non Voting Chair. > I would like the NomCom to discuss amongst > yourselves and advise who would be willing > to forfeit their voting capacity and lead > the NomCom to finalising the process of > selecting the candidates. > > As such I will ask Jeremy not to add > Deirdre to the NomCom mailing list and to > at the same time remove Guru from the > mailing list. Since Norbert is applying > for selection, he can no longer receive > any communications from you nor I on > NomCom matters. He is to be treated like > any ordinary candidate that comes through > for your review. > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534 > , Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > */Earthwise ... For Life!/* > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534 , > Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > */Earthwise ... For Life!/* > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534 , Mobile, > 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > */Earthwise ... For Life!/* > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > */Earthwise ... For Life!/* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 01:07:15 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:07:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Dr Alejandro, >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts.   We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting and submitting our request online and through email but we were told from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this.   Regards   Imran >________________________________ > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >To: Imran Ahmed Shah ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु >Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 19:05 >Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > > >Imran, > > >the beauty of the system is that you can go to an ICANN meeting or submit propossals through the online fora and fix the part you don't like. It seems that you would like a. for ICANN to do the arbitration itself instead of through expert bodies, and b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. These are pretty clear propositions. > > >Alejandro Pisanty > > >  >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >Facultad de Química UNAM >Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >  +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > >________________________________ > >Desde: Imran Ahmed Shah [ias_pk at yahoo.com] >Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 05:35 >Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > >Dear Alejandro, >>ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. >You are right that ICANN is taking care for of number of public-interest issues, but the criterion of objection is limited; ICANN commitment for compliance is further limited as the resolutions and arbitration functions are delegated to third parties. >With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. > >Regards > >Imran Ahmed Shah > > >>________________________________ >> From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु >>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 >>Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? >> >>Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), >> >>ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. >> >>Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? >> >>If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? >> >>Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? >> >>Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>    Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>Facultad de Química UNAM >>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >>Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ >>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ >>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . >> >>________________________________________ >>Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] >>Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 >>Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? >> >>On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sala, >>>> >>>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >>>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >>>> The demonstration is clear. >>>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >>>> days. >>>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >>>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >>>> >>>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >>>> anything to do with this issue? >>>> >>>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. >>> ICANN has a very narrow remit.  Asking them to police where >>> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >>McTim >> >>Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN >>should not do it? What is your view? >> >>Guru >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 6 01:18:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:48:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <13d3e59935a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> For a contract to be binding, both parties necessarily need to sign on to it. Several CcTLDs are operated by government agencies that are wary of doing this --srs (htc one x) On 6 March 2013 11:37:15 AM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Dr Alejandro, > >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. >   > We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting > and submitting our request online and through email but we were told > from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. > It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up > Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this. >   > Regards >   > Imran > > >________________________________ > > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > >To: Imran Ahmed Shah ; > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru > गुरु > >Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 19:05 > >Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > > > > > > >Imran, > > > > > >the beauty of the system is that you can go to an ICANN meeting or > submit propossals through the online fora and fix the part you don't > like. It seems that you would like a. for ICANN to do the arbitration > itself instead of through expert bodies, and b. for ccTLDs to be bound > by contracts. These are pretty clear propositions. > > > > > >Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > >  > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  > >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > >Facultad de Química UNAM > >Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >  +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > >+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > >Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > >Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > >Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > > > >________________________________ > > > >Desde: Imran Ahmed Shah [ias_pk at yahoo.com] > >Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 05:35 > >Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > >Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > > > > > >Dear Alejandro, > >>ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry > and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant > and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has > also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement > in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some > companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in > protest through known speakers and writers. > >You are right that ICANN is taking care for of number of > public-interest issues, but the criterion of objection is limited; > ICANN commitment for compliance is further limited as the resolutions > and arbitration functions are delegated to third parties. > >With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are > many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN > has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to > follow ICANN’s Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations > are being managed from separate country while the Registry is > incorporation in any third country. ICANN policies does not support > public interest over here. > > > >Regards > > > >Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > > >>________________________________ > >> From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > >>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Guru गुरु > >>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 > >>Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > >> > >>Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), > >> > >>ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry > and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant > and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has > also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants > to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, > guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the > community is in protest through known speakers and writers. > >> > >>Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that > ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials > science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated > mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? > >> > >>If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get > something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate > corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not > allow business - say for example domain name registration > in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless > they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the > companies' countries of incorporation) likes? > >> > >>Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made > claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? > >> > >>Alejandro Pisanty > >> > >> > >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >>    Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > >>Facultad de Química UNAM > >>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >> > >> > >> > >>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > >> > >>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > >>Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ > >>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > >>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > >>Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > >>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ > >>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . > >> > >>________________________________________ > >>Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु > [Guru at ITforChange.net] > >>Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 > >>Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? > >> > >>On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Sala, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some > >>>> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. > >>>> The demonstration is clear. > >>>> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few > >>>> days. > >>>> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 > >>>> members of ICANN board/GNSO. > >>>> > >>>> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have > >>>> anything to do with this issue? > >>>> > >>>> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > >>> ICANN has a very narrow remit.  Asking them to police where > >>> corporations are housed is well out of scope. > >>McTim > >> > >>Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN > >>should not do it? What is your view? > >> > >>Guru > >> > >> > >>____________________________________________________________ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Mar 6 01:45:24 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:45:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <13d3e59935a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<13d3e59935a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC0823@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Imran, well, if you believe and can argue that all ccTLDs should have binding contracts with ICANN you can start a global policy motion in the ccNSO. You know you have to persuade with arguments that weigh well against the alternatives. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de marzo de 2013 00:18 Hasta: Imran Ahmed Shah; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? For a contract to be binding, both parties necessarily need to sign on to it. Several CcTLDs are operated by government agencies that are wary of doing this --srs (htc one x) On 6 March 2013 11:37:15 AM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Dr Alejandro, >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting and submitting our request online and through email but we were told from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this. Regards Imran From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch To: Imran Ahmed Shah ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 19:05 Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Imran, the beauty of the system is that you can go to an ICANN meeting or submit propossals through the online fora and fix the part you don't like. It seems that you would like a. for ICANN to do the arbitration itself instead of through expert bodies, and b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. These are pretty clear propositions. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Desde: Imran Ahmed Shah [ias_pk at yahoo.com] Enviado el: martes, 05 de marzo de 2013 05:35 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Dear Alejandro, >ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. You are right that ICANN is taking care for of number of public-interest issues, but the criterion of objection is limited; ICANN commitment for compliance is further limited as the resolutions and arbitration functions are delegated to third parties. With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Guru गुरु Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 10:41 Subject: RE: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? Gurmurty, (no, I won't call you Guru, sorry), ICANN takes care of a number of public-interest issues (e.g. registry and registrar contract compliance, usually in benefit of the registrant and final user) *within its restricted mission*. ICANN management has also introduced criteria for new-gTLD contestants to make a statement in favor of compliance with public interest and, guess what, some companies have refused, and make it look like the community is in protest through known speakers and writers. Not so long ago, controversies were based on the perception that ICANN engaged in "mission creep", a colorful analogy based on materials science that refers to expansion of activities beyond the mandated mission. Is it now going to go in the opposite direction? If taxation is a concern what is the idea here? (trying to get something concrete though my hopes are low): that ICANN should mandate corporations what to do with their tax-paying behavior? That ICANN not allow business - say for example domain name registration in gTLD and ccTLD registries through accredited registrars - unless they are paying taxes the way someone (not the tax authority in the companies' countries of incorporation) likes? Do you have a workable alternative consistent with the often-made claim that ICANN stick strictly to its technical coordination mission? Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Thanks Carlos for the mention. Yes, I distributed a paper leaflet to some >> friends in Paris, during the WSIS. >> The demonstration is clear. >> Two journal articles are going to be published. Please, just wait a few >> days. >> I asked the question about tax heavens to Fadi Chehadé in Paris, and to 3 >> members of ICANN board/GNSO. >> >> Why would you have any reasonable expectation that ICANN would have >> anything to do with this issue? >> >> Absolutely right. ICANN has not anything to do with public interest. > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. McTim Who should take care of the public interest aspects, if you think ICANN should not do it? What is your view? Guru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Mar 6 01:50:51 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:50:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6ADA1F66-1F0F-4BEB-9E9C-8BEED32B68B8@virtualized.org> Imran, On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. > > We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting and submitting our request online and through email but we were told from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. The vast majority of ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. A fair number of ccTLD administrators have entered into "Accountability Frameworks" or exchanges of letters, see http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds for details. > It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this. Yes. ccTLD matters have historically treated as matters of national sovereignty. In the very earliest days of ICANN, an attempt was made by ICANN to force ccTLDs into contractual relations by refusing to do updates unless contracts were signed. One of the results of this was a contract modification with language inserted into the IANA Functions contract with the USG that explicitly disallowed ICANN from doing this (section c.8.3 in the current IANA functions contract). A decade later when I ran IANA, I continued to run into unhappiness at ICANN's actions during that period. > With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. Most do not. > ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. True, unless the ccTLDs agree to be bound to follow those policies. > In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third country. Which countries/ccTLDs are these? One of the requirements of RFC 1591 is: "In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country." I'm told this wording was put into RFC 1591 specifically to ensure the domain name manager is subject to the laws of the country the ccTLD represents. Lack of in-country manager can be (has been) a factor in a redelegation. > ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. I'm unsure how ICANN (or any non-sovereign) can impose their policies on national sovereigns. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 6 02:28:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:28:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire and > other safety codes. Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically requested to do so by the UN.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 6 02:46:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:16:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <13d3ea9f557.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> UN security staff most likely.. They wear blue uniforms --srs (htc one x) On 6 March 2013 12:58:02 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire and > > other safety codes. > > Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who > specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? > > (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the > Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically > requested to do so by the UN.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 6 03:01:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:01:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: <5136D800.90802@itforchange.net> References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <5136D800.90802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130306090138.2b46ee3f@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > Dear Devon, Tracey, Jose, Lillian and Sarah, > > This is to thank you both for the faith reposed in me and the time > and labour given to the task of nomcom-ing which is never easy. If > given an opportunity I will do my best to represent the views and > interests of the silent majority which I understand is the civil > society's primary purpose to do. > > Best regards, parminder Dear Devon, Tracey, Jose, Lillian and Sarah, Let me join Parminder and also thank you all for your trust and for the work that you've put into this. If my candidacy manages to clear the remaining hurdles, I'll do my best to not only represent my own ideas, but also those of the vocal minority of Internet Governance Caucus members who actively participate in our statement drafting processes. :-) And provided this is permitted by whatever rules the WG will operate under, I'll also try to write reasonably informative brief reports on what is going on there. We'll see how it goes. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 6 04:07:31 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:07:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] ccTLDs (was Re: who owns the new gTLDs?) In-Reply-To: <6ADA1F66-1F0F-4BEB-9E9C-8BEED32B68B8@virtualized.org> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6ADA1F66-1F0F-4BEB-9E9C-8BEED32B68B8@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20130306100731.0f72c329@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up > > Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this. > > Yes. ccTLD matters have historically treated as matters of national > sovereignty. This is also recognized in the Tunis Agenda: 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Mar 6 04:34:35 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:34:35 +1300 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <6ADA1F66-1F0F-4BEB-9E9C-8BEED32B68B8@virtualized.org> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> ,<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBDAF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<1362483319.10158.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBE61A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1362550035.16071.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6ADA1F66-1F0F-4BEB-9E9C-8BEED32B68B8@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <51370DAB.2060400@internetnz.net.nz> There are now 135 ccTLDs who are members of the ccNSO in ICANN. This represents well over half of the approx 244 ASCII ccTLDs, but probably these members account for 95%+ of individual ccTLD domain names registered. The ccNSO has very strict limitations on any policies that can be applied in the global sense, and encourages ccTLDs to act in accordance with the policies outlined in RFC1591, namely that the ccTLD will act in the best interests of the local Internet community. The ccTLD managers agree there are few "one size fits all" solutions, and while the ccNSO provides a forum to discuss and aspire to best practice. The idea that ccTLDs should become homogenous is not asserted as an option. Appreciation of the differences, understanding the processes of developing local solutions collaboratively with the local Internet community, so the ccTLD reflects the communities view is of considerable importance. The concept of subsidiarity, and jurisdictional law being paramount are quite clearly articulated in RFC1591 and generally subscribed to by ccTLD managers - remembering there are a fair number of ccTLDs for territories where there is no Government. After a very rough start in ICANN's early days, there was little trust from the ccTLDs in the ICANN model and structure, but it is a very different situation today. This year the ccNSO will celebrate its 10th birthday - after a struggle to get 4 ccTLDs from each of the 5 ICANN regions to join, to create the ccNSO. So to have come from 20 founding members to 130 members in 10 years does indicate greater trust in the ICANN model. And as David points out, there are many of the ccNSO members voluntarily paying fees to ICANN, and having various contractural arrangements with ICANN. The ccNSO is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" of the policies applicable to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, seeking to add "colour and depth" to the policies included in RFC1591 and the guidelines provided by the GAC in ICANN on ccTLD delegation and redelegation principles. The issues and policies around delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs are probably one of the very few areas where the ccNSO will likely have agreed globally applicable policies. The other main area has been the development of technical policies for IDN ccTLDs. Cheers Keith On 6/03/2013 7:50 p.m., David Conrad wrote: > Imran, > > On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: >> >b. for ccTLDs to be bound by contracts. >> We have tried both options, submitted concern in ICANN's Seoul Meeting >> and submitting our request online and through email but we were told >> from ICANN that some of the ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. > > The vast majority of ccTLDs are not under contract with ICANN. A fair > number of ccTLD administrators have entered into "Accountability > Frameworks" or exchanges of letters, see > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds for details. > >> It depends on the ccTLD Registry owners if they want to sign up >> Contract with ICANN or not but they are not bound to do this. > > Yes. ccTLD matters have historically treated as matters of national > sovereignty. In the very earliest days of ICANN, an attempt was made by > ICANN to force ccTLDs into contractual relations by refusing to do > updates unless contracts were signed. One of the results of this was a > contract modification with language inserted into the IANA Functions > contract with the USG that explicitly disallowed ICANN from doing this > (section c.8.3 in the current IANA functions contract). A decade later > when I ran IANA, I continued to run into unhappiness at ICANN's actions > during that period. > >> With reference to Registry & Registrar Contract Agreement, there >> are many ccTLD who have agreement with ICANN but some of them not. > Most do not. > >> ICANN has no performance monitoring controls. Those ccTLDs are not >> bound to follow ICANN’s Policies. > True, unless the ccTLDs agree to be bound to follow those policies. > >> In some examples, ccTLD registry operations are being managed from >> separate country while the Registry is incorporation in any third >> country. > Which countries/ccTLDs are these? One of the requirements of RFC 1591 is: > > "In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that > there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the > domain name system in that country." > > I'm told this wording was put into RFC 1591 specifically to ensure the > domain name manager is subject to the laws of the country the ccTLD > represents. Lack of in-country manager can be (has been) a factor in a > redelegation. > >> ICANN policies does not support public interest over here. > I'm unsure how ICANN (or any non-sovereign) can impose their policies on > national sovereigns. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Mar 6 06:15:44 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:15:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: <20130304133825.GG29227@hserus.net> References: <20130304133825.GG29227@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4D1287A9-846A-44A1-86EB-0D634E5546A9@ccianet.org> Dear Suresh, My apologies for a slow reply. I do not particularly see any obvious conflicts between TRIPS and the ITRs, though as you note a number of the proposals which were made for the ITRs (but fortunately not adopted) did have problems with other parts of the WTO agreements. On 4 Mar 2013, at 14:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Quite relevant to the extent that WTO obligations were cited as a major > factor for several countries to evaluate the ITR based on their existing > standing commitments > > Do you additionally feel that TRIPS has any implication on the issues > proposed in the ITRs and that are up for discussion? > > thanks > suresh > > Nick Ashton-Hart [04/03/13 14:22 +0100]: >> Dear governance list colleagues, >> >> Since I know some of you also are concerned with public health and IP >> issues, you may be interested to know that today, CCIA has made a press >> statement that it endorses the call of LDCs for an indefinite deferral for >> full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. You can find the press >> release online here. I believe - please correct me if I am wrong - that we >> are the first trade association to do this. I hope more follow. >> >> There is also an OpEd from me in IP Watch further elaborating on why we >> have done this available here. >> >> My apologies in advance if this does not interest you and/or you see it as >> off-topic. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 5349945 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> email/GTalk IM: nashton at ccianet.org >> Skype: nashtonhart >> http://www.ccianet.org >> >> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 6 06:24:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:54:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] CCIA Endorses indefinite extension of LDC's compliance obligations for TRIPS In-Reply-To: <4D1287A9-846A-44A1-86EB-0D634E5546A9@ccianet.org> References: <20130304133825.GG29227@hserus.net> <4D1287A9-846A-44A1-86EB-0D634E5546A9@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <13d3f71d6be.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Thanks for the confirmation And congratulations on your position on this subject --srs (htc one x) On 6 March 2013 4:45:44 PM Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > My apologies for a slow reply. I do not particularly see any obvious > conflicts between TRIPS and the ITRs, though as you note a number of > the proposals which were made for the ITRs (but fortunately not > adopted) did have problems with other parts of the WTO agreements. > > On 4 Mar 2013, at 14:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Quite relevant to the extent that WTO obligations were cited as a major > > factor for several countries to evaluate the ITR based on their existing > > standing commitments > > > > Do you additionally feel that TRIPS has any implication on the issues > > proposed in the ITRs and that are up for discussion? > > > > thanks > > suresh > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart [04/03/13 14:22 +0100]: > >> Dear governance list colleagues, > >> > >> Since I know some of you also are concerned with public health and IP > >> issues, you may be interested to know that today, CCIA has made a press > >> statement that it endorses the call of LDCs for an indefinite deferral for > >> full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. You can find the press > >> release online here. I believe - please correct me if I am wrong - that we > >> are the first trade association to do this. I hope more follow. > >> > >> There is also an OpEd from me in IP Watch further elaborating on why we > >> have done this available here. > >> > >> My apologies in advance if this does not interest you and/or you see it as > >> off-topic. > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Nick Ashton-Hart > >> Geneva Representative > >> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) > >> Tel: +41 (22) 5349945 > >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > >> email/GTalk IM: nashton at ccianet.org > >> Skype: nashtonhart > >> http://www.ccianet.org > >> > >> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time > and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 apisan at unam.mx Wed Mar 6 09:41:39 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:41:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC1A7B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Norbert, the information is accurate and exact. Did I say Swiss police? Suresh has already told you who this was. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de marzo de 2013 01:28 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire and > other safety codes. Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically requested to do so by the UN.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 10:25:59 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:25:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Candidates and Evaluation sheet for civil society nominations to the UN Commission on Science & Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group (WG) on Enhanced Co-operation (EC) In-Reply-To: <5135706F.8080903@apc.org> References: <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <5134F69F.6080800@apc.org> <5135706F.8080903@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, I trust you would have received the profiles of the candidates chosen by the nomcom by now. Please indicate if there is anything outstanding . Regards Devon On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Apologies.. as you all probably guessed. The CSTD chair has asked for 3 names > from developing countries, and 3 from developed countries. > > Anriette > > On 04/03/2013 21:31, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Thanks Devon! > > For everyone's information, I have convened a small selection group to > help me to come up with the final shortlist. I have also received, at last > count, 12 nominations. > > The chair of the CSTD has asked me to compile a list of 6 names- 3 from > developed countries and 3 from developed countries. > I will keep you all updated. > > Anriette > > On 04/03/2013 19:46, Devon Blake wrote: > > Dear All, > The following persons are selected for by the nomcom for recomendation to > the CSTD. > Norbort Bollow > Avri Doria > Parminder Jeet Singh > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Jeremy Malcolm > > Congrats to you all. Please note that in order for the proper information > to reach Anriette, we need the following information immediately. Once > received I will send all documentation to Anriette. If the profile you > sent > already contains all the info then please state and I will send as is. > > Thanks to all the Nomcom team for their sterling work on this. > > Regards! > > > Devon > > > Please include: > 1. Your name, email and contact number > 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are > affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity > please provide information on the selection process. > 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your > job title) > 3. Your country of residence > 4. Your nationality and your gender > > Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD > chair in making the final selection: > > 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented > policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also > between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that > people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have > a lot to contribute)? > > 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in > the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general? > > 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings > and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva. > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Sarah Kiden wrote: > > Devon, > > Does that mean that we have to score again (especially for the optional > criteria)? > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Devon Blake wrote: > > Dear all > Attached please see my tally on your selections to the CSTD, There are > however some issues. As you will notice there is a tie between two of the > Candidates, Avri and William and only one more needs to be selected. Also > in reviewing your scores I note that apart from Sarah everyone scored the > optional criteria out of 10 instead of five as agreed. Time is short and > it > is critical that we announce the successful candidates immediately, could > you all please look at your scoring and find a way to break the tie > between > Avri and William? thanks. This is urgent. > Regards, > Devon > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Devon and Members of the NomCom, > > Best wishes in your deliberations as you undertake what is one of the > most important tasks for the IGC this year. > > I wish you well in your work. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Devon Blake wrote: > > Thanks Sala, > I will do my best to see the process completed. > Devon > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > snaalanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > > wrote: > Dear Devon, > > Thank you for stepping up. This is a difficult time as you can > imagine. Ginger will also be available to provide language translation > assistance should it be necessary and your past experiences in past > NomComs > will certainly be useful. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Devon Blake wrote: > > > Dear Sala/Nomcom members, > In order to facilitate the smooth running of this selection process > and to ensure the process is constitutionally correct, I will forgo my > voting privileges to chair the Nomcom committee, provided of course that > Tracey keeps her promise and assist. > Devon > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tracey Naughton < > tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote: > > Dear Nomcom Members and Sala, > > Greetings from burning hot Melbourne. > > I have just gone through my emails and identified the candidates > listed below. Have I missed anyone? > I think we have 8 candidates. > I sent each of these people a note confirming receipt of their > nomination. The note said: > ------------------------------------- > Dear ....., > > As you may know the Chair of the Nomcom had to recuse himself and we > don't have a replacement to date. > As a courtesy, and as a member of the Nomcom, I am just letting you > know that your nomination has been received. > > regards > ------------------------------------- > > *We have nominations from:* > > William Drake > Norbert Bollow > Imran Ahmed Shah > Avri Doria > Parminder Jeet Singh > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > John B. Kavuma > Jeremy Malcolm > > I am *attaching the spreadsheet *I drafted earlier and we agreed to > use in order to select five candidates. > > In doing this, I am not accepting the role of Chair. I would like to > retain my vote. I am just hoping to make up some lost time and keep us > moving forward. > > *Does anyone on the Nomcom want to take over as non-voting Chair?*This > would involve: > > - encouraging all Nomcom members to go through the applications and > complete the spreadsheet, then email it to the Chair > - counting all the spreadsheet results > - facilitating any discussions if there is a hung result > - reporting to the co-ordinators and IGF list on the process and > outcomes > > I'm prepared to help with that work. > > Tracey > __________________ > Tracey Naughton > (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, > Geneva and Tunis) > Communication for Development Consultant > Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - > Extractive Sector > ____________________________________ > based in Victoria, Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Members of NomCom, > > Warm Greetings! This is to advise that Deirdre will not be chairing > the NomCom. Since Guru has stepped down, I have asked Jeremy to remove > Guru > from the mailing list. > > Deirdre will NOT be the NomCom Independent Non-Voting Chair and as > such we still do not have an Independent Non Voting Chair. I would like > the > NomCom to discuss amongst yourselves and advise who would be willing to > forfeit their voting capacity and lead the NomCom to finalising the > process > of selecting the candidates. > > As such I will ask Jeremy not to add Deirdre to the NomCom mailing > list and to at the same time remove Guru from the mailing list. Since > Norbert is applying for selection, he can no longer receive any > communications from you nor I on NomCom matters. He is to be treated like > any ordinary candidate that comes through for your review. > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 6 11:24:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 17:24:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC1A7B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC1A7B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20130306172425.37b105ab@quill.bollow.ch> Well the claim is new to me that it is "accurate and exact" to reference the members of the UNOG Security and Safety Section (UNOG SSS) as "police", and unless a link to some official document stating this is given, I'll not believe it. This is an important distinction for some purposes, even if it is probably not important for the purpose of getting the electric power problem in UNOG fixed. Greetings, Norbert Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Norbert, > > the information is accurate and exact. > > Did I say Swiss police? Suresh has already told you who this was. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow > [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de marzo de 2013 01:28 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] 20th > century arrives in Geneva > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire > > and other safety codes. > > Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who > specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? > > (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the > Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically > requested to do so by the UN.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 12:19:03 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:19:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130306172425.37b105ab@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC1A7B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306172425.37b105ab@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: SS as a name for police (after the 2WW) was never a good name, was it? On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Well the claim is new to me that it is "accurate and exact" to > reference the members of the UNOG Security and Safety Section > (UNOG SSS) as "police", and unless a link to some official > document stating this is given, I'll not believe it. This is > an important distinction for some purposes, even if it is > probably not important for the purpose of getting the electric > power problem in UNOG fixed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > Norbert, > > > > the information is accurate and exact. > > > > Did I say Swiss police? Suresh has already told you who this was. > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > Facultad de Química UNAM > > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________________ > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow > > [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de marzo de 2013 01:28 > > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] 20th > > century arrives in Geneva > > > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > > > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > > > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > > > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > > > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > > > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > > > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire > > > and other safety codes. > > > > Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who > > specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? > > > > (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the > > Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically > > requested to do so by the UN.) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 6 13:21:50 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:21:50 +0200 Subject: acronyms, again was Re: [governance] Facebook ... In-Reply-To: References: <510086BE.6010100@ITforChange.net> <056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com> <51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com> <066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com> <5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net> <51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net> <51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net>,<-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5137893E.8070703@apc.org> Great idea Avri. APC has a glossary in En, Esp and Fr and Portuguese.. so all we would need is someone to do the app :) http://www.apc.org/en/glossary/6 Anriette On 26/01/2013 23:52, Avri Doria wrote: > On 26 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Avri Doria wrote: > >> how to deal with acronyms in email. > > speaking of which it would be useful to: > > - include a glossary app on the IGC website, that could include not only translations of acronyms but also capacity raising xrefs* to the fundamental explanatory docs > > - to include a reference to that glossary in the coda* that is added on to all list messages > > - and super cool to have a grammar and app, that would pick out the glossary additions that message writers added to the bottom of their messages and automatically add them to the glossary. These would probably need to be moderated otherwise some prankster might become merry. > > > avri > > * xrefs - cross references used in HTML to allow one to follow a thread > * coda - the ending text of all IGC mailing list messages. Ie. > " > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > " -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 6 13:22:19 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:22:19 +0200 Subject: acronyms, again was Re: [governance] Facebook ... In-Reply-To: References: <510086BE.6010100@ITforChange.net> <056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com> <51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com> <066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com> <5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net> <51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net> <51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net>,<-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5137895B.10202@apc.org> Great idea Avri. APC has a glossary in En, Esp and Fr . so all we would need is someone to do the app :) http://www.apc.org/en/glossary/6 Anriette On 26/01/2013 23:52, Avri Doria wrote: > On 26 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Avri Doria wrote: > >> how to deal with acronyms in email. > > speaking of which it would be useful to: > > - include a glossary app on the IGC website, that could include not only translations of acronyms but also capacity raising xrefs* to the fundamental explanatory docs > > - to include a reference to that glossary in the coda* that is added on to all list messages > > - and super cool to have a grammar and app, that would pick out the glossary additions that message writers added to the bottom of their messages and automatically add them to the glossary. These would probably need to be moderated otherwise some prankster might become merry. > > > avri > > * xrefs - cross references used in HTML to allow one to follow a thread > * coda - the ending text of all IGC mailing list messages. Ie. > " > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > " -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 6 14:06:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 00:36:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch> <20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC1A7B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130306172425.37b105ab@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <13d4118a93f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> They were never a police organization.. All the ones that were classed as police had names ending with po for polizei.. Such as the geheim staats polizei. Beyond that, there's three S there :) --srs (htc one x) On 6 March 2013 10:49:03 PM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > SS as a name for police (after the 2WW) was never a good name, was it? > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Well the claim is new to me that it is "accurate and exact" to > > reference the members of the UNOG Security and Safety Section > > (UNOG SSS) as "police", and unless a link to some official > > document stating this is given, I'll not believe it. This is > > an important distinction for some purposes, even if it is > > probably not important for the purpose of getting the electric > > power problem in UNOG fixed. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > > > Norbert, > > > > > > the information is accurate and exact. > > > > > > Did I say Swiss police? Suresh has already told you who this was. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > > Facultad de Química UNAM > > > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > > > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > > > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow > > > [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de marzo de 2013 01:28 > > > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] 20th > > > century arrives in Geneva > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > > > > > we tried and often exercised the power-strip approach (sometimes in > > > > long daisy-chains) in the Palais des Nations lots of times in the > > > > WSIS and successor processes, only to be cut off (and sometimes > > > > chased out of rooms) by the police, for violations of the fire code. > > > > Further, the police told us that the cords could make people trip in > > > > case the room had to be evacuated fast, another violation of fire > > > > and other safety codes. > > > > > > Assuming that this information is accurate... is it known who > > > specifically in the UN made the decision to call the police? > > > > > > (It is part of the agreement between the UN and Switzerland that the > > > Swiss police will not enter the UN compound unless specifically > > > requested to do so by the UN.) > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Mar 6 15:02:31 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:02:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM, William Drake wrote: > Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June > for IGF, CSTD, etc… > > [snip] > Good news indeed, though still limited. Unless it was fixed very recently, the UN Geneva internet is "*filtered*". Access is barred when a user selects a DNS server of his choice, as routinely offered on any access device. UN internet WIFI access for visitors is only possible if the user consents to the UN DNS, which is apparently *restricted to the ICANN root. * It would be fair to inform users of this filtering, and explain why. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 6 15:28:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:28:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20130306202811.GA29014@hserus.net> Louis Pouzin (well) [06/03/13 21:02 +0100]: >Access is barred when a user selects a DNS server of his choice, as >routinely offered on any access device. UN internet WIFI access for >visitors is only possible if the user consents to the UN DNS, which is >apparently *restricted to the ICANN root. Do you mean they only query the L root server? Now that's strange. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 16:16:28 2013 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:16:28 -0800 Subject: acronyms, again was Re: [governance] Facebook ... In-Reply-To: <5137895B.10202@apc.org> References: <510086BE.6010100@ITforChange.net> <056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com> <51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com> <066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com> <5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net> <51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net> <51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net> <-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com> <5137895B.10202@apc.org> Message-ID: Great idea Avri from my side also. I would be happy to contribute to such glossary in Russian 2013/3/6 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Great idea Avri. APC has a glossary in En, Esp and Fr . so all we would need > is someone to do the app :) > > > http://www.apc.org/en/glossary/6 > > Anriette > > On 26/01/2013 23:52, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Avri Doria wrote: > > how to deal with acronyms in email. > > speaking of which it would be useful to: > > - include a glossary app on the IGC website, that could include not only > translations of acronyms but also capacity raising xrefs* to the fundamental > explanatory docs > > - to include a reference to that glossary in the coda* that is added on to > all list messages > > - and super cool to have a grammar and app, that would pick out the glossary > additions that message writers added to the bottom of their messages and > automatically add them to the glossary. These would probably need to be > moderated otherwise some prankster might become merry. > > > avri > > * xrefs - cross references used in HTML to allow one to follow a thread > * coda - the ending text of all IGC mailing list messages. Ie. > " > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > " > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 6 16:23:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 22:23:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] disentangling philosophy from ideology (was Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade...) In-Reply-To: References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130306222339.1b801173@quill.bollow.ch> On 3 Mar 2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > On 21 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > On 21 February 2013 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a > > relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into > > account, even if they conflict with ideology. > > How to disentangle both? I would suggest that those who are interested in figuring out which of their own views fall into which category can achieve that by means of participating in deliberative multistakeholder processes, provided that the participants of those processes are diverse enough. I don't think that the process of disentangling can be forced on anyone. But maybe eventually we will have a sufficiently mature public opinion that when policies are proposed that are based on a tangled mess of philosophy and ideology, they will quickly be recognized for what they are, and consequently distrusted. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Mar 6 16:29:42 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 22:29:42 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <00ef01ce1ab1$b7c6dd80$27549880$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> What about using a VPN service? I don't think that is restricted, as otherwise no one of the business people would be able to visit their corporate network safely. And there are private VPN providers accessible for the non-corporate users as well, so you should be able to make your pick. -- Peter Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well) Gesendet: 06 March 2013 21:03 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Betreff: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM, William Drake wrote: Some good news today for people who will be visiting Geneva in May-June for IGF, CSTD, etc. [snip] Good news indeed, though still limited. Unless it was fixed very recently, the UN Geneva internet is "filtered". Access is barred when a user selects a DNS server of his choice, as routinely offered on any access device. UN internet WIFI access for visitors is only possible if the user consents to the UN DNS, which is apparently restricted to the ICANN root. It would be fair to inform users of this filtering, and explain why. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Mar 6 16:40:29 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:40:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: disentangling philosophy from ideology (was Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade...) In-Reply-To: <20130306222339.1b801173@quill.bollow.ch> References: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130306222339.1b801173@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, I don't think it is possible to disentangle philosophy/ideology and policy-making. In a political context, normative horizons (both philosophically- and ideologically-based ones, or a mix of both) always inform policy-decisions. That is something clearly observable by the context of the different comments that travel through this list. Best regards Diego On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On 3 Mar 2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > On 21 February 2013 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > > policy is driven by philosophy or ideology. > > > > > > A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a > > > relatively blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into > > > account, even if they conflict with ideology. > > > > How to disentangle both? > > I would suggest that those who are interested in figuring out which of > their own views fall into which category can achieve that by means of > participating in deliberative multistakeholder processes, provided that > the participants of those processes are diverse enough. > > I don't think that the process of disentangling can be forced on anyone. > > But maybe eventually we will have a sufficiently mature public opinion > that when policies are proposed that are based on a tangled mess of > philosophy and ideology, they will quickly be recognized for what they > are, and consequently distrusted. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lnalwoga at gmail.com Thu Mar 7 04:29:30 2013 From: lnalwoga at gmail.com (Lillian Nalwoga) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:29:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Africa Multi Stakeholder Internet Governance meeting- Remote participation available Message-ID: Dear all, Remote participation for the Africa Multi-Stakeholder IG event in Addis is now available... follow links in the forwarded email... - Lillian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dandjinou Pierre Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Remote participation To: "africann at afrinic.net" Dear All, This is the Adobe Connect room : http://icann.adobeconnect.com/amig/ Audio will be broadcasted through the Adobe Connect room, but in the In the event a participant cannot join online, an audio bridge is available. Phone numbers are available at http://adigo.com/icann/ and the Conference ID is 801223. Sorry the the late communication on this, due to technical problems at the premises. Opening session has just started! Thanks -- Pierre Dandjinou Cotonou - 229 90 087784 / 66566610 Dakar 221 77 639 30 41 www.scg.bj skype : sagbo1953 _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Mar 7 04:49:56 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:49:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline Approaching: 2013 IEEE 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystem Technologies - Complex Environment Engineering (IEEE DEST-CEE 2013) Message-ID: <00f001ce1b19$1fe385a0$5faa90e0$@unimi.it> Dear Researcher, It's our pleasure to inform you about the upcoming 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystem Technologies - Complex Environment Engineering (IEEE DEST-CEE 2013) to be held in Palo Alto, USA from 23 to 26 July 2013. We take this opportunity to seek your participation in this conference as a speaker / attendee. The IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 website outlines the complete details of the conference: http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/ IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 is organized in cooperation with Berkeley University and will be situated in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and thus right in the epicenter of the Digital Ecosystem revolution. We look forward to a strong involvement from both, academia and global players for innovation adoption. I am also attaching the latest Call for Papers with this email for your reference. Please feel free to circulate it amongst your contacts as well. Please note that the submission deadline is approaching: March 25, 2013. On behalf of the General Chairs and the Organization Committee, we look forward to your involvement at IEEE DEST-CEE 2013. Warm Regards Fulvio Frati Conference Publicity Team IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DEST-CEE2013-cfp.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 694483 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 dl at panamo.eu Thu Mar 7 07:00:17 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:00:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51354ED2.6030504@cafonso.ca> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <51354ED2.6030504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51388151.3090403@panamo.eu> Caro Carlos, Yes, of course, I would never have thrown myself into that friendly arena ;-) More a lack of time than of interest. But now, thank you. Yes, it revealed to me two or three very interesting points. By the way, please, note that I write on lemonde.fr, as an invited blogger. Em breve, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 05/03/13 02:48, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > Chère Dominique, > > First of all, sorry, Dominique, to throw you into the Coliseum arena. :) > > But maybe the reactions, even the knee-jerk ones, will help you in > going deeper in your work on this theme. > > Cordialement > > --c.a. > > On 03/04/2013 07:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : >>> ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where >>> corporations are housed is well out of scope. >> Dear McTimand Alejandro, >> I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. >> Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) >> >> I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their >> opinion. >> About a big national and international problem, in those times of >> crisis. >> The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. >> The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. >> The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! >> >> You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say >> both of you. >> >> BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to >> ICANN: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf >> >> He supports ICANN initiative that included a *public interest >> commitment* in the new registry contract. >> NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill /"the need //for//commitment to be binding >> and enforceable."// >> /Well. >> And now, what is the content of public interest? >> /"The fight against couterfeiting and piracy."/ >> >> A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... >> But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security >> forces etc. >> A strange ideaof public interest, isn't it? >> >> @+, cheers, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 7 07:05:43 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:05:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] who owns the new gTLDs? In-Reply-To: <51388151.3090403@panamo.eu> References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <51354ED2.6030504@cafonso.ca> <51388151.3090403@panamo.eu> Message-ID: It will be interesting to hear Fadi's reply. More on companies avoiding tax, and other things: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/top-tax-dodging-companies-politicians Adam On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Caro Carlos, > > Yes, of course, I would never have thrown myself into that friendly arena > ;-) > More a lack of time than of interest. > > But now, thank you. Yes, it revealed to me two or three very interesting > points. > > By the way, please, note that I write on lemonde.fr, as an invited blogger. > > Em breve, Dom > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > Le 05/03/13 02:48, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > > Chère Dominique, > > First of all, sorry, Dominique, to throw you into the Coliseum arena. :) > > But maybe the reactions, even the knee-jerk ones, will help you in going > deeper in your work on this theme. > > Cordialement > > --c.a. > > On 03/04/2013 07:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > Le 04/03/13 23:09, McTim a écrit : > > ICANN has a very narrow remit. Asking them to police where > corporations are housed is well out of scope. > > Dear McTimand Alejandro, > I never wrote that I asked ICANN to police anyone. > Alejandro, you had better not to approve so quickly a biased answer ;-) > > I only wrote that I asked questions to ICANN managers to get their opinion. > About a big national and international problem, in those times of crisis. > The OECD is stuying the question of tax heavens, and also the EU. > The American middle classes must know why they pay a so expensive price. > The Internet ecosystem isn't outside of the world! > > You will read soon what Fadi Chehadé answered. Not exactly what you say > both of you. > > BTW, have a look, please on the letter Mr Stricking, NTIA, sent to ICANN: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/ntia-icann-pic.pdf > > He supports ICANN initiative that included a *public interest > commitment* in the new registry contract. > NTIA asks ICANN to fulfill /"the need //for//commitment to be binding > and enforceable."// > /Well. > And now, what is the content of public interest? > /"The fight against couterfeiting and piracy."/ > > A bit larger than the theft of the plans for a new fighter plane... > But not anything about contributing schools, hospitals, roads, security > forces etc. > A strange ideaof public interest, isn't it? > > @+, cheers, > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Mar 7 11:39:10 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 04:39:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] New Research on online copyright infringement #Ofcom # IPR #copyright Message-ID: Dear All, Ofcom has just published interesting research on Online Copyright Infringement. See below: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Updates Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM Subject: Ofcom Update: Research on online copyright infringement To: Ofcom has today published the second wave of a quarterly consumer research study, carried out on its behalf by Kantar Media, into both lawful and unlawful access and use of copyrighted content online. Overall, there are very few significant differences in the results of the second-wave report and those of the first wave, which was published in November 2012. The report contains details about the methodology used, and the underlying data is being made available for further analysis. ........................................................................... -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 8 02:00:39 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:00:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IP-Watch: US Defender Of Internet Freedom, Keen On Protecting IP Rights In-Reply-To: <201303080020.r280KDug016911@imu289.infomaniak.ch> References: <201303080020.r280KDug016911@imu289.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <51398C97.9040501@gmail.com> ******************************************************************************************************** March 08, 2013. US Defender Of Internet Freedom, Keen On Protecting IP Rights For the third year in a row, the United States mission to the United Nations in Geneva brought together human rights activists from different parts of the world in an effort to promote internet freedom. At a press briefing, a senior US State Department official described efforts to address challenges to freedom on the internet, and said that intellectual property in the context of internet is a complicated issue. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=27184&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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Mar 10 06:09:31 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:09:31 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> Message-ID: In message <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>, at 18:13:15 on Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >You mean "the 21st century", right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I >believe, and I don't think it has been widely in use much before 2000. Wifi (or as it was called at the time "WaveLAN") was in limited use before 2000, but it was unusual to encounter it even at technical community meetings until 2001. Here's a timeline with a few milestones on it: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2002/08/wi-fi_timeline.html -- 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 hakik at hakik.org Sun Mar 10 06:58:19 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:58:19 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> Message-ID: Dear Ronald, Thanks for sharing from being wired to wireless. While I was building the longest WiFi route across several cities in Bangladesh during 2000, providing services to two public universities, several NGOs and the rural electrification board, somehow being mis-informed by someone or somebodies, the then head of UNDP in Bangladesh was pessimistic about inclusion of this form of technology. Time could not sit a back, BBC went there twice to take interview about my project and all those concepts of telemedicine, e-learning and e-governance flourished in the country since then. (Just a remembrance!) Best regards, Hakikur At 10:09 10-03-2013, Roland Perry wrote: >In message <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>, at 18:13:15 >on Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >>You mean "the 21st century", right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I >>believe, and I don't think it has been widely in use much before 2000. > >Wifi (or as it was called at the time "WaveLAN") was in limited use >before 2000, but it was unusual to encounter it even at technical >community meetings until 2001. > >Here's a timeline with a few milestones on it: > >http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2002/08/wi-fi_timeline.html > >-- >Roland Perry > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Mar 10 07:36:35 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:36:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals References: Message-ID: It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals > Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 > To: Robin Gross > Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Hi Robin > > Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> fyi >> >>> >>> >>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! >>> >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>> >>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. >>> >>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) >>> >>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>> >>> For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>> >>> In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>> >>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. >>> >>> An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. >>> >>> The template will be as follows: >>> >>> 1. Workshop working title: >>> 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>> 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>> 4. Indication of workshop format: >>> a. Panel* >>> b. Roundtable >>> c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>> d. Other (please describe) >>> 5. Name of contact person:** >>> 6. Institution: >>> 7. Contact email: >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Mar 10 14:29:00 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:29:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> Message-ID: <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> Dear Hakikur, Roland, Peter and all An interesting article to be found in Mobile Europe is likely to be a useful contribution to this debate. You'll find it here :http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/News-Analysis/mwc-2013-carrier-grade-wi-fi-using-passpoint-won-t-be-available-till-2014 I understand the interest that such a topic raises, particularly in DCs where mobile coverage is widely available. A very interesting experience joining WiFi technology and photovoltaics for powering it, is in progress in Cameroon. Info about it can be found here :www.yocanetcm.net That's why I asked the ITU to add the theme "ICT and Energy : The Virtuous Link" to its workshop program during the next WSIS Forum in Geneva, and to invite qualified people involved in the Cameroons' experience for presnting their project. I'd like Hakikur to present his own experience and its outcomes, and exchange opinions and views with both the Cameroonians and the audience... provided ITU agrees for such an event. In the meantime, I'd support a sound standardisation for this technology to be successful, effective and sustainable. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/03/13 12:00 > De : "Hakikur Rahman" > A : "Roland Perry" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva > > Dear Ronald, > > Thanks for sharing from being wired to wireless. While I was building > the longest WiFi route across several cities in Bangladesh during > 2000, providing services to two public universities, several NGOs and > the rural electrification board, somehow being mis-informed by > someone or somebodies, the then head of UNDP in Bangladesh was > pessimistic about inclusion of this form of technology. Time could > not sit a back, BBC went there twice to take interview about my > project and all those concepts of telemedicine, e-learning and > e-governance flourished in the country since then. (Just a remembrance!) > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > > At 10:09 10-03-2013, Roland Perry wrote: > >In message , at 18:13:15 > >on Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds writes > >>You mean "the 21st century", right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I > >>believe, and I don't think it has been widely in use much before 2000. > > > >Wifi (or as it was called at the time "WaveLAN") was in limited use > >before 2000, but it was unusual to encounter it even at technical > >community meetings until 2001. > > > >Here's a timeline with a few milestones on it: > > > >http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2002/08/wi-fi_timeline.html > > > >-- > >Roland Perry > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Mar 10 14:57:45 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:57:45 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> Message-ID: In message <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www at wwinf1e08>, at 19:29:00 on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Jean-Louis FULLSACK writes >An interesting article to be found in Mobile Europe is likely to be a >useful contribution to this debate. You'll find it here : > >http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/News-Analysis/mwc-2013-carrier-grade-wi-fi >-using-passpoint-won-t-be-available-till-2014 This correlates well with the efforts of mobile phone companies in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere) to try to offload data bandwidth onto "free" wifi. Which although it's counter-intuitive to offer customers data for free, rather than per-GB, allows their 2G/3G data networks to catch up with the demand from mobile users. I don't believe in "one last push" [and then it's solved for ever] theory, and I expect that demand will continue to increase faster than they can build out 4G networks. Having a scheme in place to charge for the "free" wifi at some point in the future makes perfect sense. -- 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Mar 10 16:46:30 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:46:30 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> ,<896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Jean-Louis, thanks for sharing the piece on carrier grade Wi-Fi. You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... anyone have more (industry-grade) details? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jean-Louis FULLSACK [jlfullsack at orange.fr] Enviado el: domingo, 10 de marzo de 2013 12:29 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Hakikur Rahman; Roland Perry CC: josseliny at gmail.com Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva Dear Hakikur, Roland, Peter and all An interesting article to be found in Mobile Europe is likely to be a useful contribution to this debate. You'll find it here : http://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/News-Analysis/mwc-2013-carrier-grade-wi-fi-using-passpoint-won-t-be-available-till-2014 I understand the interest that such a topic raises, particularly in DCs where mobile coverage is widely available. A very interesting experience joining WiFi technology and photovoltaics for powering it, is in progress in Cameroon. Info about it can be found here : www.yocanetcm.net That's why I asked the ITU to add the theme "ICT and Energy : The Virtuous Link" to its workshop program during the next WSIS Forum in Geneva, and to invite qualified people involved in the Cameroons' experience for presnting their project. I'd like Hakikur to present his own experience and its outcomes, and exchange opinions and views with both the Cameroonians and the audience... provided ITU agrees for such an event. In the meantime, I'd support a sound standardisation for this technology to be successful, effective and sustainable. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/03/13 12:00 > De : "Hakikur Rahman" > A : "Roland Perry" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva > > Dear Ronald, > > Thanks for sharing from being wired to wireless. While I was building > the longest WiFi route across several cities in Bangladesh during > 2000, providing services to two public universities, several NGOs and > the rural electrification board, somehow being mis-informed by > someone or somebodies, the then head of UNDP in Bangladesh was > pessimistic about inclusion of this form of technology. Time could > not sit a back, BBC went there twice to take interview about my > project and all those concepts of telemedicine, e-learning and > e-governance flourished in the country since then. (Just a remembrance!) > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > > At 10:09 10-03-2013, Roland Perry wrote: > >In message , at 18:13:15 > >on Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds writes > >>You mean "the 21st century", right? I acquired my first WiFi card in 2002, I > >>believe, and I don't think it has been widely in use much before 2000. > > > >Wifi (or as it was called at the time "WaveLAN") was in limited use > >before 2000, but it was unusual to encounter it even at technical > >community meetings until 2001. > > > >Here's a timeline with a few milestones on it: > > > >http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2002/08/wi-fi_timeline.html > > > >-- > >Roland Perry > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sun Mar 10 19:01:27 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:01:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 12 days notice for the international community to put together proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is very, very short notice. At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly surprised others didn't raise the issue. I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in time. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: > It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. > > Bill > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: William Drake >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >> Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: Robin Gross >> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Hi Robin >> >> Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> fyi >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! >>>> >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>>> >>>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. >>>> >>>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) >>>> >>>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>>> >>>> For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>>> >>>> In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>>> >>>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. >>>> >>>> An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. >>>> >>>> The template will be as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. Workshop working title: >>>> 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>>> 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>>> 4. Indication of workshop format: >>>> a. Panel* >>>> b. Roundtable >>>> c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>>> d. Other (please describe) >>>> 5. Name of contact person:** >>>> 6. Institution: >>>> 7. Contact email: >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 11 00:29:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:59:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <513D5DB0.9080702@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 March 2013 04:31 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > 12 days notice for the international community to put together > proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is > very, very short notice. I fully agree. I dont understand what is the hurry when the next meeting of MAG is more than 2 months away. People take time to come up with ideas, discuss and pass them internally in their organisations, and perhaps with partners and networks.... > > At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one > who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly > surprised others didn't raise the issue. > > I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what > is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new > comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in > time. Although they have a different deadline for newcomers.... which is all a very twisted unnecessarily complex logic , the purpose of which is not too clear. Perhaps MAG members here can help us understand this. parminder > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. >> Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a >> workshop in Bali. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *William Drake >> > >>> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for >>> Workshops Proposals* >>> *Date: *March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 >>> *To: *Robin Gross > >>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of >>> clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society >>> types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the >>> lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: >>> people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be >>> aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and >>> then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 >>> April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do >>> the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the >>> concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people >>> who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I >>> don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could >>> cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully >>> everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the >>> next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a >>> workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the >>> MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous >>> year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order >>> to qualify to organize something the following year. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross >> > wrote: >>> >>>> fyi >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a >>>>> preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching >>>>> deadline of 22 March 2013! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>>>> >>>>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals PDF >>>>> >>>>> Print >>>>> >>>>> E-mail >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 >>>>> March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of >>>>> workshops. >>>>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be >>>>> issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description >>>>> of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information >>>>> in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority >>>>> themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could >>>>> also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of >>>>> the MAG summary report: >>>>> .) >>>>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>>>> >>>>> * For organizers of workshops in *2011 or 2012* IGF meeting the >>>>> submission of a preliminary proposal by *22 March 2013 *is >>>>> mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and >>>>> assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the >>>>> Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to >>>>> submit full and complete workshop proposals by *30 April 2013 >>>>> *based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents >>>>> with similar proposals may be asked to work together to >>>>> develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents >>>>> cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>>>> * In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time >>>>> proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit >>>>> preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit >>>>> a full and complete workshop proposal by *30 April 2013*. The >>>>> Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>>>> >>>>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat >>>>> is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the >>>>> deadline will be *22 March 2013*. >>>>> An online form will be available on *15 March 2013 *on the IGF >>>>> website for submissions. >>>>> The template will be as follows: >>>>> 1.Workshop working title: >>>>> 2.Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>>>> 3.Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>>>> 4.Indication of workshop format: >>>>> a.Panel* >>>>> b.Roundtable >>>>> c.Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>>>> d. Other (please describe) >>>>> 5.Name of contact person:** >>>>> 6.Institution: >>>>> 7.Contact email: >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>>>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP JUSTICE >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: >>>> robin at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Mar 11 04:00:42 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:00:42 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27 at W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, at 20:46:30 on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch writes >You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... >anyone have more (industry-grade) details "FON in your phone", perhaps? -- 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 apisan at unam.mx Mon Mar 11 04:13:15 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:13:15 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Roland, exactly, I thought of FON, but with your telco/ISP using and managing your gear to create their network. Interesting models may emerge or just get the naive users to both pay and share. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Enviado el: lunes, 11 de marzo de 2013 02:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In message <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27 at W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, at 20:46:30 on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch writes >You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... >anyone have more (industry-grade) details "FON in your phone", perhaps? -- 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 Mar 11 04:20:41 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:20:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] An interesting perspective on Freedom of Speech in the Internet era Message-ID: <46F7FB51-0A60-43B7-8846-25715857206E@istaff.org> Reference: This is an interesting perspective on Freedom of Speech in the Internet era by Jason Pontin of MIT's Technology Review magazine. It's informative and entertaining due to its style, done in the manner of a letter to the late British philosopher John Stuart Mill. I do not know if I can agree with the conclusions (which I will poorly summarize as there can be no middle ground, US businesses on the Internet need to operate based on US principles for freedom of speech and not do business in those countries which have otherise incompatible systems), but in any case, the logical build-up in the article definitely provides an interesting framework for thinking about freedom of speech and the Internet. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 11 06:43:13 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:43:13 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: >Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch writes >>You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... >>anyone have more (industry-grade) details >"FON in your phone", perhaps? >Roland, >exactly, I thought of FON, but with your telco/ISP using and managing >your gear to create their network. Interesting models may emerge or >just get the naive users to both pay and share. >Alejandro Pisanty It would be very easy not to charge the host-phone for this "FON-like" traffic, all you would need to do is have a virtual twin-SIM, with data calls made by the user charged to the user's account, and data calls made by the FON-bot charged to a different account. There's some sort of scheme like that built into 3G, although I've never noticed it being implemented, where a 3G call can be "bounced off" an intermediate handset for the benefit of one that's in a very local coverage shadow. In neither of these cases do I think the network could get away with charging the user for third party calls, but it will likely use up some of their battery power. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 11 06:50:42 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:50:42 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Doesn't Free do something like this (Free, French ISP) Adam On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch writes >>> >>> You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... >>> anyone have more (industry-grade) details > > >> "FON in your phone", perhaps? > > > >> Roland, > > >> exactly, I thought of FON, but with your telco/ISP using and managing your >> gear to create their network. Interesting models may emerge or just get the >> naive users to both pay and share. > > >> Alejandro Pisanty > > > It would be very easy not to charge the host-phone for this "FON-like" > traffic, all you would need to do is have a virtual twin-SIM, with data > calls made by the user charged to the user's account, and data calls made by > the FON-bot charged to a different account. > > There's some sort of scheme like that built into 3G, although I've never > noticed it being implemented, where a 3G call can be "bounced off" an > intermediate handset for the benefit of one that's in a very local coverage > shadow. > > In neither of these cases do I think the network could get away with > charging the user for third party calls, but it will likely use up some of > their battery power. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Mar 11 07:00:51 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:00:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: <57391013.235534.1362988362280.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <57391013.235534.1362988362280.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <734983969.255043.1362999649804.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> The short deadline is not for newcomers but for those who have previously (in 2011 and 2012) organized workshops. Peter On 11.03.2013, at 00:03, "Robert Guerra" wrote: 12 days notice for the international community to put together proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is very, very short notice. At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly surprised others didn't raise the issue. I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in time. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: > It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. > > Bill > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: William Drake >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >> Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: Robin Gross >> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Hi Robin >> >> Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> fyi >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! >>>> >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>>> >>>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. >>>> >>>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) >>>> >>>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>>> >>>> For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>>> >>>> In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>>> >>>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. >>>> >>>> An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. >>>> >>>> The template will be as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. Workshop working title: >>>> 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>>> 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>>> 4. Indication of workshop format: >>>> a. Panel* >>>> b. Roundtable >>>> c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>>> d. Other (please describe) >>>> 5. Name of contact person:** >>>> 6. Institution: >>>> 7. Contact email: >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Mar 11 07:08:56 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:08:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8882A850-FBB1-4C69-B1B8-01513548E13F@uzh.ch> Hi Robert On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > 12 days notice for the international community to put together proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is very, very short notice. Yes it's too short, and there are other concerns as well, e.g. the asymmetric treatment of applicants; initial cuts potentially being made by the outgoing MAG based only on titles rather than a full criteria-based review; the possibility that there are people around the world who actually do not closely follow the preparatory process and could be shocked to be told they failed to meet the first deadline and so cannot submit a full proposal; the realistic possibility, if history's any guide, that a rule is set out but then ends up being relaxed/undermined anyway on an ad hoc basis when problems ensue; etc. I've raised these and other points in the MAG, a couple others (inc. Izumi) expressed concern, but there wasn't much discussion and so it just went forward. > > At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly surprised others didn't raise the issue. So you and Norbert were both the sole champion? :-) As is evident from the transcript, http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1285-igf-2013-mag-transcript- the very brief discussion of the two dates and their interrelation happened at the very end of the day, as many people were packing up, and went like this: >>IZUMI AIZU:...And, also, maybe it is a procedural question that is it the case that if -- for the preliminary submission and the full submission, what if you miss the preliminary one but still you are entitled to send the full proposal without going into the preliminary ones? Am I right? >>CHAIR KUMMER: Not really, no. I thought the whole idea was precisely asking for a preliminary declaration of interest. If you miss that one, okay, it is one workshop less. We have achieved our game of reducing the number of workshops. Honestly, we have three weeks. We ask for a few sentences on an issue you are interested in. That is doable. And if you are interested in the IGF, you will watch the outcome of this meeting and this is the concrete outcome. Please spread the news to your various lists and colleagues…. Yes, Robert? >>ROBERT GUERRA: Just a quick question, clarification. So if the deadline is three weeks, does that mean that March 22nd is the deadline? I think it just should be available a link put on the page soon enough so people can be directed. >>CHAIR KUMMER: Yes, that's the idea. Three weeks from now is March 22nd. And the deadline for the workshop proposals is 30th of April. Can I hand back to our Chairman to conclude the meeting? Not a lot of opportunity for anyone else to jump in at that point, which is why we immediately took it up on the MAG list. > > I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in time. Based on the previous list dialogue, I don't see this happening. But if the 22 March deadline fails, poor response, I bet we'll then revisit and change the deadline or mandatory bit per usual, in which case the whole discussion will have been just extra cycles. Bill > > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: William Drake >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>> Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 >>> To: Robin Gross >>> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>> fyi >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>>>> >>>>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>>>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. >>>>> >>>>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) >>>>> >>>>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>>>> >>>>> For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>>>> >>>>> In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>>>> >>>>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. >>>>> >>>>> An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. >>>>> >>>>> The template will be as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Workshop working title: >>>>> 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>>>> 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>>>> 4. Indication of workshop format: >>>>> a. Panel* >>>>> b. Roundtable >>>>> c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>>>> d. Other (please describe) >>>>> 5. Name of contact person:** >>>>> 6. Institution: >>>>> 7. Contact email: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>>>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP JUSTICE >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Mar 11 07:29:00 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:29:00 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] 20th century arrives in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds> <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message , at 19:50:42 on Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Adam Peake writes >Doesn't Free do something like this (Free, French ISP) On mobile, or fixed... BT does it on fixed lines in the UK. >On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> >>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch writes >>>> >>>> You got to love the "crowdsourcing through client's devices" part... >>>> anyone have more (industry-grade) details >> >> >>> "FON in your phone", perhaps? >> >> >> >>> Roland, >> >> >>> exactly, I thought of FON, but with your telco/ISP using and managing your >>> gear to create their network. Interesting models may emerge or just get the >>> naive users to both pay and share. >> >> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> It would be very easy not to charge the host-phone for this "FON-like" >> traffic, all you would need to do is have a virtual twin-SIM, with data >> calls made by the user charged to the user's account, and data calls made by >> the FON-bot charged to a different account. >> >> There's some sort of scheme like that built into 3G, although I've never >> noticed it being implemented, where a 3G call can be "bounced off" an >> intermediate handset for the benefit of one that's in a very local coverage >> shadow. >> >> In neither of these cases do I think the network could get away with >> charging the user for third party calls, but it will likely use up some of >> their battery power. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Mar 11 10:14:01 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:14:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: <734983969.255043.1362999649804.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <57391013.235534.1362988362280.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <734983969.255043.1362999649804.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <8615BB29-90F5-4ED1-B749-6C973C0DFB89@privaterra.org> I disagree. The assumption that those who have previously submitted proposals - learn about the new process, and put together details needed by the deadline is - it in my opinion - unreasonable. the very short deadline It assumes that all those who have submitted proposals in the past 2 years are following the process closely. Sure MAG members and those who attended the Paris deadline may be aware of the deadline, but it will take a bit longer for others to learn of the news. Did not the MAG not have the consensus that proposals were to be encouraged from "not the usual suspects" ? if so, then might I be bold enough to propose a individual proposal to have the deadlines extended. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-03-11, at 7:00 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > The short deadline is not for newcomers but for those who have previously (in 2011 and 2012) organized workshops. > > Peter > > On 11.03.2013, at 00:03, "Robert Guerra" wrote: > > 12 days notice for the international community to put together proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is very, very short notice. > > At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly surprised others didn't raise the issue. > > I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in time. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: William Drake >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>> Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 >>> To: Robin Gross >>> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>> fyi >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals >>>>> >>>>> 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals >>>>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. >>>>> >>>>> They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) >>>>> >>>>> The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: >>>>> >>>>> For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. >>>>> >>>>> In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. >>>>> >>>>> As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. >>>>> >>>>> An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. >>>>> >>>>> The template will be as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Workshop working title: >>>>> 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: >>>>> 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: >>>>> 4. Indication of workshop format: >>>>> a. Panel* >>>>> b. Roundtable >>>>> c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) >>>>> d. Other (please describe) >>>>> 5. Name of contact person:** >>>>> 6. Institution: >>>>> 7. Contact email: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. >>>>> * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP JUSTICE >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Mar 11 11:14:56 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:14:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals In-Reply-To: <8615BB29-90F5-4ED1-B749-6C973C0DFB89@privaterra.org> References: <57391013.235534.1362988362280.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <734983969.255043.1362999649804.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <8615BB29-90F5-4ED1-B749-6C973C0DFB89@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <002a01ce1e6b$36711e40$a3535ac0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Robert, I agree that the deadline for preliminary proposals by the usual suspects (22 March) is very short, but it should be noted with relief that for newcomers the deadline is 30 April. I am sure current MAG members who follow this list have either already privately asked the Chair and Secretariat for an extension or will do so soon publicly. In the past, deadlines that have been too short (evidenced usually by a limited number of replies by the time of the deadline) have been extended at short notice. >From what I understand, the reasoning behind a short preliminary deadline was to get some bottoms-up input helping the MAG to determine some of the likely themes for the Bali IGF. So, the preliminary proposals need not be fully fledged proposals, but rather "declarations of intent". The Chair and Secretariat are not looking for names of speakers but preliminary titles and an indication of the likely format. So, the expectation is that it does not require much work. I think for civil society members who subscribe to this list it should be fairly simple to come up with a number of possible workshop titles, if a fully fledged proposal need only be finalized by end of April. If that proves too difficult, I am sure that current MAG members on this list will take up the discussion within the IGF MAG members mailing list, as they have done in the past. -- Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: 11 March 2013 15:14 An: Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals I disagree. The assumption that those who have previously submitted proposals - learn about the new process, and put together details needed by the deadline is - it in my opinion - unreasonable. the very short deadline It assumes that all those who have submitted proposals in the past 2 years are following the process closely. Sure MAG members and those who attended the Paris deadline may be aware of the deadline, but it will take a bit longer for others to learn of the news. Did not the MAG not have the consensus that proposals were to be encouraged from "not the usual suspects" ? if so, then might I be bold enough to propose a individual proposal to have the deadlines extended. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-03-11, at 7:00 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: The short deadline is not for newcomers but for those who have previously (in 2011 and 2012) organized workshops. Peter On 11.03.2013, at 00:03, "Robert Guerra" wrote: 12 days notice for the international community to put together proposals for a - if not the - leading Internet Governance meeting is very, very short notice. At the recent consultation in Paris I was surprised to be the only one who raised the issue that it was too short a timeline. Utterly surprised others didn't raise the issue. I sincerely hope that the MAG and IGF secretariat will revisit what is, in effect, a deadline that makes it effectively impossible for new comers to know about the call for workshop proposals and submit one in time. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-03-10, at 7:36 AM, William Drake wrote: It just occurred to me I've not seen this mentioned on the gov list. Many people have just 12 days to decide if they want to organize a workshop in Bali. Bill Begin forwarded message: From: William Drake Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IGF 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals Date: March 10, 2013 12:31:24 PM GMT+01:00 To: Robin Gross Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Hi Robin Thanks for circulating this. Getting the CFP to even this level of clarity required some insistence by a couple of us civil society types on the MAG, but it may still require more reading between the lines and inference than is ideal. So just to make sure it's clear: people who organized workshops in the past two years need to be aware that they must submit a preliminary proposal by 22 March and then be invited by the MAG in order to submit a full proposal by 30 April. If they don't do the former, they will not be allowed to do the latter, and if the former's approved, they can't change the concept much post hoc. These restrictions do not apply to people who've not organized events in the past two years. Personally, I don't see how this new policy is value-adding and think it could cause confusion and/or consternation down the line, but hopefully everyone effected will get the memo and be able to decide within the next twelve days whether they might want and be able to organize a workshop in late October. In a related vein, please recall the MAG's prior decision that a workshop organizer from the previous year must post to the IGF website a report on their event in order to qualify to organize something the following year. Best, Bill On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote: fyi Some of you may already be aware, but the IGF has issued a preliminary call for workshop proposals with a fast approaching deadline of 22 March 2013! http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-pro cess/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals 2013 Preliminary Call for Workshops Proposals The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in its meeting on 1 March 2013 agreed to modify the procedure for the selection of workshops. They advised that a preliminary call for workshop proposals be issued. Workshop proponents should include a concise description of the thematic area of interest and other pertinent information in their submissions. The proposals could focus on the priority themes identified by the open consultations/MAG meetings or could also introduce other themes. (These can be found in the annex of the MAG summary report:.) The MAG recommended that a two track process be followed: . For organizers of workshops in 2011 or 2012 IGF meeting the submission of a preliminary proposal by 22 March 2013 is mandatory. After this deadline the MAG will go through and assess the preliminary proposals. The MAG through the Secretariat will then invite selected workshop proponents to submit full and complete workshop proposals by 30 April 2013 based on these preliminary proposals. Workshop proponents with similar proposals may be asked to work together to develop a single fully-fledged proposal. Workshop proponents cannot significantly change the topic of an approved proposal. . In order to encourage workshop organizers, first time proposers are encouraged to but do not need to submit preliminary workshop proposals. They do however have to submit a full and complete workshop proposal by 30 April 2013. The Secretariat stands ready to assist new comers in any way. As a result of the above MAG recommendations the IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline will be 22 March 2013. An online form will be available on 15 March 2013 on the IGF website for submissions. The template will be as follows: 1. Workshop working title: 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest: 3. Concise description of specific issues to be addressed: 4. Indication of workshop format: a. Panel* b. Roundtable c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) d. Other (please describe) 5. Name of contact person:** 6. Institution: 7. Contact email: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Names of speakers are not required at this stage. * *New workshop organizers are encouraged. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 10:15:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:15:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <569FABF3-F13C-410B-8E0D-66D1AF6CCF63@gmail.com> References: <569FABF3-F13C-410B-8E0D-66D1AF6CCF63@gmail.com> Message-ID: <084a01ce1f2c$110fbff0$332f3fd0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: DAVID J. FARBER [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:33 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/world/asia/us-demands-that-china-end-hacki ng-and-set-cyber-rules.html?ref=global-home U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules WASHINGTON - The Obama administration demanded Monday that China take steps to stop the widespread hacking of American government and corporate computer networks and that it engage in a dialogue to set standards for security in cyberspace. The demands, laid out in a speech by President Obama's national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, represent the first direct response by the White House to a raft of attacks on American computer networks, many of which appear to have originated with the People's Liberation Army. "U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale," Mr. Donilon said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Asia Society in New York. . The White House, he said, was seeking three things from Beijing: public recognition of the urgency of the problem; a commitment to crack down on hackers operating in China; and an agreement to take part in a dialogue to establish "acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace."... ------------------------------------------- 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=20130311153255:75E12600-8A82-11E2-99E3-91A56B16ADAE 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 12 10:31:43 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:31:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <084a01ce1f2c$110fbff0$332f3fd0$@gmail.com> References: <569FABF3-F13C-410B-8E0D-66D1AF6CCF63@gmail.com> <084a01ce1f2c$110fbff0$332f3fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Link to the speech: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf Adam On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: DAVID J. FARBER [mailto:farber at gmail.com ] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:33 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - > NYTimes.com > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/world/asia/us-demands-that-china-end-hacki > ng-and-set-cyber-rules.html?ref=global-home > > U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules > > WASHINGTON - The Obama administration demanded Monday that China take steps > to stop the widespread hacking of American government and corporate > computer > networks and that it engage in a dialogue to set standards for security in > cyberspace. > > The demands, laid out in a speech by President Obama's national security > adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, represent the first direct response by the > White > House to a raft of attacks on American computer networks, many of which > appear to have originated with the People's Liberation Army. > > "U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about > sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and > proprietary technologies through cyberintrusions emanating from China on an > unprecedented scale," Mr. Donilon said in remarks prepared for delivery to > the Asia Society in New York. > > . > > > > The White House, he said, was seeking three things from Beijing: public > recognition of the urgency of the problem; a commitment to crack down on > hackers operating in China; and an agreement to take part in a dialogue to > establish "acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace."... > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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=20130311153255:75E12600-8A82-11E2-99E3-91A56B16ADAE > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 10:47:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Message-ID: <08b001ce1f30$9458c560$bd0a5020$@gmail.com> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-int ernet-is-a-worldbeater.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Mar 12 11:15:53 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:15:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Mike, you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. Add to this the notion of "China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. Just my 2 cents on this. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 12:29:34 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:29:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> Peter and all, I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Mike, you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. Add to this the notion of " China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. Just my 2 cents on this. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Mar 12 13:29:09 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:29:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Michael, Why would you think we would need a global agreement as opposed to some bilateral or some multilateral agreements between individual states or other actors? Why would you want us to believe that a single global agreement would be necessary for the functioning of the Internet in an inclusive manner for the interest of us all when over he past 30 years a loose collection of individual agreements or sometimes handshake agreements between different parties has brought us up to a point where we are today where more and more people enjoy a relatively unfettered Internet as they please? What do you think is broken about the current Internet that needs fixing? And why should a single global agreement be the better of the choices if other options do exist? To me, as should be clear by now, there is no clear indication based on these two articles of a need for a global agreement. But alas, I may have been both too long on the Internet and have dealt for too long with the UN system to think that there could be a globally negotiated agreement that would be a catch-for-all for all the various aspects of life on the Internet. In my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by the articles you have posted and I don't see from your explanation how you would arrive at those conclusions, so maybe you wish to expand on this and give a step by step, let's say, more rigorous (academic) elaboration of your thinking in this regard. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 17:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: Peter and all, I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Mike, you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. Add to this the notion of "China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. Just my 2 cents on this. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 14:56:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:56:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <09f701ce1f53$531a9240$f94fb6c0$@gmail.com> Hi Peter, I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. Maybe it is possible but in other areas such as the Law of the Sea and the Outer Space Treaty where similar issues were raised it was deemed necessary that the agreements be multilateral and in the form of a binding agreement (another disclaimer as I'm sure that many on this list know these areas much better than I and would be much better placed to comment). M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Michael, Why would you think we would need a global agreement as opposed to some bilateral or some multilateral agreements between individual states or other actors? Why would you want us to believe that a single global agreement would be necessary for the functioning of the Internet in an inclusive manner for the interest of us all when over he past 30 years a loose collection of individual agreements or sometimes handshake agreements between different parties has brought us up to a point where we are today where more and more people enjoy a relatively unfettered Internet as they please? What do you think is broken about the current Internet that needs fixing? And why should a single global agreement be the better of the choices if other options do exist? To me, as should be clear by now, there is no clear indication based on these two articles of a need for a global agreement. But alas, I may have been both too long on the Internet and have dealt for too long with the UN system to think that there could be a globally negotiated agreement that would be a catch-for-all for all the various aspects of life on the Internet. In my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by the articles you have posted and I don't see from your explanation how you would arrive at those conclusions, so maybe you wish to expand on this and give a step by step, let's say, more rigorous (academic) elaboration of your thinking in this regard. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 17:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: Peter and all, I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Mike, you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. Add to this the notion of " China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. Just my 2 cents on this. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 15:46:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:46:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] FCC's McDowell: 'We Are Losing the Fight for Internet Freedom' Message-ID: <0a4b01ce1f5a$5a775210$0f65f630$@gmail.com> http://www.i-policy.org/2013/03/fccs-mcdowell-we-are-losing-the-fight-for-in ternet-freedom.html (There is some growling on the net about Chairman McDowell fighting the good fight internationally and what the FCC has been doing (or not doing) domestically... 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 Tue Mar 12 15:59:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:59:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: <569FABF3-F13C-410B-8E0D-66D1AF6CCF63@gmail.com> <084a01ce1f2c$110fbff0$332f3fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a5401ce1f5c$19ec4550$4dc4cff0$@gmail.com> Tks Adam, It may be worth quoting the specific passages where Internet issues are raised. M Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of the U.S. government. Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale. The international community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our economy against cyber-threats. >From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and the risk it poses-to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese industry and to our overall relations. Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these activities. Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. And the United States and China, the world's two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. . That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the public good of an open, secure Internet. From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Re: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com Link to the speech: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20As ia%20Society.pdf Adam On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, michael gurstein wrote: -----Original Message----- From: DAVID J. FARBER [mailto:farber at gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:33 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/world/asia/us-demands-that-china-end-hacki ng-and-set-cyber-rules.html?ref=global-home U.S. Demands That China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules WASHINGTON - The Obama administration demanded Monday that China take steps to stop the widespread hacking of American government and corporate computer networks and that it engage in a dialogue to set standards for security in cyberspace. The demands, laid out in a speech by President Obama's national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, represent the first direct response by the White House to a raft of attacks on American computer networks, many of which appear to have originated with the People's Liberation Army. "U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale," Mr. Donilon said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Asia Society in New York. . The White House, he said, was seeking three things from Beijing: public recognition of the urgency of the problem; a commitment to crack down on hackers operating in China; and an agreement to take part in a dialogue to establish "acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace."... ------------------------------------------- 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=20130311153255:75E12600-8A82-11E2-99E3-91A56B16ADAE Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 15:54:06 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:54:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FCC's McDowell: 'We Are Losing the Fight for Internet Freedom' Message-ID: <855xt0c7f3c20ley7q9cry8o.1363118046070@email.android.com> I am at the hearing. This is one Commissioner,  not the views of the majority of the Commission.  Just a  single viewpoint from the political party that is not in power..... . -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FCC's McDowell: 'We Are Losing the Fight for Internet Freedom' http://www.i-policy.org/2013/03/fccs-mcdowell-we-are-losing-the-fight-for-in ternet-freedom.html (There is some growling on the net about Chairman McDowell fighting the good fight internationally and what the FCC has been doing (or not doing) domestically... M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 12 16:43:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:13:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <09f701ce1f53$531a9240$f94fb6c0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <09f701ce1f53$531a9240$f94fb6c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0D57770D-3459-4A81-B361-1D38C5344EDA@hserus.net> It is unfortunately going to be a nonstarter till such time as a couple of the countries that have been its loudest advocates so far aren't seen as being tacit supporters of online espionage, ddos etc on a grand scale --srs (iPad) On 13-Mar-2013, at 0:26, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. > > Maybe it is possible but in other areas such as the Law of the Sea and the Outer Space Treaty where similar issues were raised it was deemed necessary that the agreements be multilateral and in the form of a binding agreement (another disclaimer as I'm sure that many on this list know these areas much better than I and would be much better placed to comment). > > M > > From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:29 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > Michael, > > Why would you think we would need a global agreement as opposed to some bilateral or some multilateral agreements between individual states or other actors? > > Why would you want us to believe that a single global agreement would be necessary for the functioning of the Internet in an inclusive manner for the interest of us all when over he past 30 years a loose collection of individual agreements or sometimes handshake agreements between different parties has brought us up to a point where we are today where more and more people enjoy a relatively unfettered Internet as they please? > > What do you think is broken about the current Internet that needs fixing? And why should a single global agreement be the better of the choices if other options do exist? > > > To me, as should be clear by now, there is no clear indication based on these two articles of a need for a global agreement. > > > But alas, I may have been both too long on the Internet and have dealt for too long with the UN system to think that there could be a globally negotiated agreement that would be a catch-for-all for all the various aspects of life on the Internet. > > > In my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by the articles you have posted and I don't see from your explanation how you would arrive at those conclusions, so maybe you wish to expand on this and give a step by step, let's say, more rigorous (academic) elaboration of your thinking in this regard. > > > Peter > > > On 12.03.2013, at 17:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Peter and all, > > I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. > > What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… > > M > > From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > Mike, > > you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? > > Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. > > Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: > > "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." > > > > While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. > > > > Add to this the notion of "China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. > > Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. > > Just my 2 cents on this. > > Peter > > On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 12 16:49:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:19:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0D57770D-3459-4A81-B361-1D38C5344EDA@hserus.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <09f701ce1f53$531a9240$f94fb6c0$@gmail.com> <0D57770D-3459-4A81-B361-1D38C5344EDA@hserus.net> Message-ID: The sting in the tail seems to be the mention of maritime security and unimpeded commerce, which assumes huge significance in that china is aggressively asserting its claims to large parts of the South China Sea that other nations consider their eaters or islands. The cybercrime related text is only going to make them issue a routine denial. This second one will provoke fury is what I think. --srs (iPad) On 13-Mar-2013, at 2:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is unfortunately going to be a nonstarter till such time as a couple of the countries that have been its loudest advocates so far aren't seen as being tacit supporters of online espionage, ddos etc on a grand scale > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Mar-2013, at 0:26, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Hi Peter, >> >> I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. >> >> Maybe it is possible but in other areas such as the Law of the Sea and the Outer Space Treaty where similar issues were raised it was deemed necessary that the agreements be multilateral and in the form of a binding agreement (another disclaimer as I'm sure that many on this list know these areas much better than I and would be much better placed to comment). >> >> M >> >> From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:29 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist >> >> Michael, >> >> Why would you think we would need a global agreement as opposed to some bilateral or some multilateral agreements between individual states or other actors? >> >> Why would you want us to believe that a single global agreement would be necessary for the functioning of the Internet in an inclusive manner for the interest of us all when over he past 30 years a loose collection of individual agreements or sometimes handshake agreements between different parties has brought us up to a point where we are today where more and more people enjoy a relatively unfettered Internet as they please? >> >> What do you think is broken about the current Internet that needs fixing? And why should a single global agreement be the better of the choices if other options do exist? >> >> >> To me, as should be clear by now, there is no clear indication based on these two articles of a need for a global agreement. >> >> >> But alas, I may have been both too long on the Internet and have dealt for too long with the UN system to think that there could be a globally negotiated agreement that would be a catch-for-all for all the various aspects of life on the Internet. >> >> >> In my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by the articles you have posted and I don't see from your explanation how you would arrive at those conclusions, so maybe you wish to expand on this and give a step by step, let's say, more rigorous (academic) elaboration of your thinking in this regard. >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> On 12.03.2013, at 17:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> Peter and all, >> >> I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. >> >> What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… >> >> M >> >> From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist >> >> Mike, >> >> you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? >> >> Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. >> >> Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: >> >> "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." >> >> >> >> While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. >> >> >> >> Add to this the notion of "China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. >> >> Finally > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 17:01:26 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:01:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0D57770D-3459-4A81-B361-1D38C5344EDA@hserus.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <274331791.79907.1363107893776.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <1365514427.81171.1363109368745.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <09f701ce1f53$531a9240$f94fb6c0$@gmail.com> <0D57770D-3459-4A81-B361-1D38C5344EDA@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0ada01ce1f64$cc8daa70$65a8ff50$@gmail.com> I'm not sure that that follows since the intent with such an agreement presumably would be precisely to recognize and put restrictions on such behaviours… If we were all saints we wouldn't need laws would we :) M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:43 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds; Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist It is unfortunately going to be a nonstarter till such time as a couple of the countries that have been its loudest advocates so far aren't seen as being tacit supporters of online espionage, ddos etc on a grand scale --srs (iPad) On 13-Mar-2013, at 0:26, "michael gurstein" wrote: Hi Peter, I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. Maybe it is possible but in other areas such as the Law of the Sea and the Outer Space Treaty where similar issues were raised it was deemed necessary that the agreements be multilateral and in the form of a binding agreement (another disclaimer as I'm sure that many on this list know these areas much better than I and would be much better placed to comment). M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Michael, Why would you think we would need a global agreement as opposed to some bilateral or some multilateral agreements between individual states or other actors? Why would you want us to believe that a single global agreement would be necessary for the functioning of the Internet in an inclusive manner for the interest of us all when over he past 30 years a loose collection of individual agreements or sometimes handshake agreements between different parties has brought us up to a point where we are today where more and more people enjoy a relatively unfettered Internet as they please? What do you think is broken about the current Internet that needs fixing? And why should a single global agreement be the better of the choices if other options do exist? To me, as should be clear by now, there is no clear indication based on these two articles of a need for a global agreement. But alas, I may have been both too long on the Internet and have dealt for too long with the UN system to think that there could be a globally negotiated agreement that would be a catch-for-all for all the various aspects of life on the Internet. In my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions that are not substantiated by the articles you have posted and I don't see from your explanation how you would arrive at those conclusions, so maybe you wish to expand on this and give a step by step, let's say, more rigorous (academic) elaboration of your thinking in this regard. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 17:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: Peter and all, I don't have any opinion on this or on the previous article that I posted on the US concern re: cybersecurity… It seems that these are statements of fact or at least intention and the proponents in both instances could care a fig about my opinion on their actions one way or the other. What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… M From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Mike, you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions on this? Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the underlying paper. Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from the article: "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow over the internet [...]." While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to the open and free Internet. Add to this the notion of " China's advances in creating a next-generation internet that is on a national level", then you also add a certain level of fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the net. Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to information or anonymous sharing and expression of information impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become impossible, with all its consequences. Just my 2 cents on this. Peter On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Tue Mar 12 17:17:27 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:17:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> See below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein wrote: What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Mar 12 18:21:36 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:21:36 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can be much more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired objectives and are much easier to negotiate and implement than any kind of global agreement, which usually would take a decade or two to negotiate and would be watered down so much that the initiators would see nothing left of their original intent. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: 12 March 2013 22:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds Betreff: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist See below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein wrote: What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all. There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Mar 12 19:47:38 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:47:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Secretive Copyright Negotiations Continue at the 16th Round of TPP Talks Message-ID: As long as ITU is not part of the gang, closed doors talks are OK for the USG. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/secretive-copyright-negotiations-continue-16th-round-tpp-talks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 20:42:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:42:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks. You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input. Strange world you guys live in. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. Hellmonds Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael gurstein' Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can be much more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired objectives and are much easier to negotiate and implement than any kind of global agreement, which usually would take a decade or two to negotiate and would be watered down so much that the initiators would see nothing left of their original intent. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: 12 March 2013 22:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds Betreff: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist See below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein wrote: What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all. There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 13 01:19:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:49:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. While there certainly is this unique context of global IG about the power of states vis a vis the global communication realm, and the perverse political incentives than this issue brings in, civil society still must aim for higher norms and principle based universalistic agreements over narrow interests based opportunistic ones. Like Michael, I am surprised and disconcerted that there is open advocacy in a civil society group against such universalistic agreements in favour of narrow interests based bilateral ones. The latter never serve the more marginalised, whose interests progressive civil society should be representing. Remember, human rights instruments are also multilaterally negotiated texts, something which was done at a time when a much smaller percentage of countries were democracies then are today! In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark the so called loosely structured private governance systems that dominate Internet governance. What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance systems. parminder On Wednesday 13 March 2013 06:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks… > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement > negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the > responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats > in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the > Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to > separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the > interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral > agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, > given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, > the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input… > > Strange world you guys live in… > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter H. > Hellmonds > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael > gurstein' > *Subject:* AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a > world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can > be much more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired > objectives and are much easier to negotiate and implement than any > kind of global agreement, which usually would take a decade or two to > negotiate and would be watered down so much that the initiators would > see nothing left of their original intent. > > Peter > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *Nick > Ashton-Hart > *Gesendet:* 12 March 2013 22:17 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Peter H. Hellmonds > *Betreff:* Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a > world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > See below > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > > On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein > wrote: > > What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they > (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global > agreements concerning the overall governance > (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of > cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in > an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… > > There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are > seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, > China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, > yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect > equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are > homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which > China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the > things it is doing to its citizens. > > There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow > of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. > > This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain > states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just > because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement > its provisions. > > !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 13 02:03:40 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:03:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: > In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that > goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently > at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such > kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and > blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark > the so called loosely structured private governance systems that > dominate Internet governance. > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I > consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from > public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, > based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather > systemic. Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over something that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going to return the favour and repost something that he recently posted to the ISOC list, which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are referring to: > 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a number of other fora which are either already planned or in the making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet open, interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it political or private. > > 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms that stem from the Internet community. So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem from the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes far to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in constraining the development of the IGF. Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech showed, even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did acknowledge that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide an alternative forum than the ITU to which developing countries could turn to address their concerns. Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is not, and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, and that they can't sweep away intergovernmental processes (especially multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the road"... -- *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 nashton at ccianet.org Wed Mar 13 02:21:23 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:21:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> Dear Parminder, see below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse typos. If you want to schedule some time to talk, try this: http://meetme.so/nashton On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:19, parminder wrote: I've snipped the rest to focus on this point, which seems (to me, clearly others may see things differently) the most significant of your post. Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would be likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you see. Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new global situation: governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only because of a massive external threat or stress - which the negotiation is designed to deal with. What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 13 02:37:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:37:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130313063732.GA12295@hserus.net> Conversely, how long will it take the technical community to assume that the IGF is a place where there is a lot of talk (a superfluity of it) with practically no consensus or agreement, let alone substantial policy expertise that is not already available in the usual fora? Civil society and the technical community would do very well not to alienate each other here Jeremy Malcolm [13/03/13 14:03 +0800]: >On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: >> In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that >> goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently >> at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such >> kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and >> blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark >> the so called loosely structured private governance systems that >> dominate Internet governance. >> >> What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I >> consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from >> public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, >> based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather >> systemic. > >Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over something >that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going to return the >favour and repost something that he recently posted to the ISOC list, >which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are referring to: > >> 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a number of other fora which are either already planned or in the making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet open, interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it political or private. >> >> 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms that stem from the Internet community. > >So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem from >the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global >norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as >bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes far >to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in >constraining the development of the IGF. > >Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech showed, >even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did acknowledge >that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide an alternative >forum than the ITU to which developing countries could turn to address >their concerns. > >Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to >realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is not, >and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, and >that they can't sweep away intergovernmental processes (especially >multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the road"... > >-- > >*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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 13 02:42:09 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:12:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Message-ID: <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> China's creating a national Internet model based on the requirements of its authoritarian political system is in my view at least partly a failure of enough and appropriate global governance of the Internet. Well, I dont necessarily mean that China could have been deterred from this path, but its acts could have certainly been made less politically justifiable if we have sat together early to develop common global principles for the global Internet, a task that the dominant global players have constantly shirked from (with a fear of losing their dominance). Further, a bigger danger now is that a lot of other countries, importantly, also the non authoritarian ones, can be expected to cosy up to China and try to replicate its Internet model, which while being authoritarian does have other positive aspects over the dominate global Internet (as the referred article suggests). The wholesale rebuff given to the developing countries at WCIT in developed country's refusal to sign a 'harmless' and 'toothless' new ITRs and thus signalling perhaps a withdrawal from multilateral governance systems in the IG realm would have long term impacts. When those who dominate the current global Internet governance realms (US unilateralism, and various kinds of rich county plurilateralisms) are increasingly clear that they have no intentions to include developing countries, expect at their own terms (like seeking accession to treaties after they have been negotiated among the rich nations) what do you expect the developing countries to do? this is a question that those in the civil society who have consistently sided with the undemocratic dominant global IG realms must respond to. Is not their perhaps unthinkingly partisan stand considerably responsible for the path that we may see these other developing countries (non China, Iran etc) go, possibly towards, what may appear to be, the rather attractive Chinese model of Internet. Would it not have been better to listen to and accommodate the genuine concerns that developing countries may have had on issues like broadband models, security, spam etc at WCIT and/ or other at democratic global forums? So many of the supporters of the current dominant global IG models seem to think that they can keep actors from developing countries 'selectively incentivised' or perhaps even confused and fooled forever, which is really not a sustainable model. It will fail much sooner than its promoters think it will. Instead, lets recognise people's and countries' democratic aspirations and real governance needs, and come with good faith to the global IG table. Lets start with trying to agree on some highest principles for the global governance of the Internet in public interest, and also get down to trying to work out agreements on areas like net neutrality, freedom of expression and association, regulation of global Internet business, tax on global e-commerce, security, spam, IPv6 implementation and so on. If we refuse to float together we will sink separately; I mean all others than the most powerful 1 percent (although I think the number is closer to 8-15 percent, I will go with the currently in vogue percentage. :) ) The forthcoming meetings of the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is a good opportunity to pull our head out of the sand and make some positive contributions. A lot depends on what position civil society will take, becuase it is the civil society that is supposed to come up with higher value based positions in favour of larger public interest; something which is very much needed in the current stalemate arising from dominant actors on all sides sticking to narrow partisan interest based positions. parminder On Tuesday 12 March 2013 08:45 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Mike, > > you post a link to an article without making a commentary as to > whether you endorse the views expressed or not. What are your opinions > on this? > > Here are some of my preliminary observations and remarks, based on a > quick reading of the article but not on a comprehensive study of the > underlying paper. > > Key in this article, and perhaps one of the reasons why the West is > hesitant about some of these advances would be this part sentence from > the article: > > "It is the basis for a system that monitors and controls traffic flow > over the internet [...]." > > While I know that telco operators need to monitor and control traffic > in order to assure that there is no traffic congestion (especially on > mobile networks), they do this without regard for the specific content > (instead rather based on content classes or protocols), whereas if you > combine monitoring and control with content filtering (as the article > claims "to block malicious traffic as a whole"), then there is a not > just remote possibility that this could be abused in a way contrary to > the open and free Internet. > > Add to this the notion of "China's advances in creating a > next-generation internet > that is > on a national level", then you also add a certain level of > fragmentation to the net that counters the end-to-end principle of the > net. > > Finally, Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) could be abused > by tracing and tracking of users which would make anonymous access to > information or anonymous sharing and expression of information > impossible. Right now, proxies and VPNs allow for such things but if a > network of trusted computers maintains a database of computers and > their IP addresses, then masking one's identity might become > impossible, with all its consequences. > > Just my 2 cents on this. > > Peter > > On 12.03.2013, at 15:48, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729075.800-chinas-nextgeneration-internet-is-a-worldbeater.html > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 13 03:25:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:55:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> Dear Nick Some responses below On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. Why > would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, given > the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would be > likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you see. What do you think of various human rights instruments, that were globally negotiated, in times much worse than today. How do you explain them? > > Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a > codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new > global situation: I dont think we can right now jump into an ominbus Internet treaty, and I am not sure it will ever be required/ useful. However, we can start will trying to put together some higher level Internet principles. We can also begin to discuss and try to seek solutions, and as possibly codify them, on emergent issues like cross border data flows, net neutrality, basic content flow and FoE guarantees, regulation of global Internet business, global competition policy frameworks in the Internet space, and so on. Before that we can and should try to put together a formal place where such things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political will to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there numerous supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space to start considering these issues, with a /possibility/ of being able to do something about them. That is the problem right now, and it cant be pushed away by providing generally pessimistic perspectives on the world's political capabilities. > governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their > existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only > because of a massive external threat or stress - which the negotiation > is designed to deal with. Nick, you are referring to a classical political dilemma, and human race has constantly surprised itself by rising above it and acting collectively in larger public interest. As Hobbes described the human life as solitary, poor, nasty, /brutish/, and /short /and//yet (or because of that), they could enter into a social contract and organise into political communities..... Everyone around me sees enough problematic aspects of how the Internet is evolving, and they are keen that if possible something should be done about it. Is it not the view of the people you meet? BTW, did you see the latest Hollywood movie on Lincoln, that great leader of people. Does it not explain how people can actually act what appears to be against their narrow self interest, for a larger good. Why else would a bunch of white American together decide to liberate slaves (the whole movie being about this great phenomenon), and lose on cheap captive labour, and all great enjoyments of life that come with it? Can you explain this phenomenon, and I will explain to you why countries, if put together, can, and will, indeed work out agreements in public interest. parminder > >> What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I >> consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from >> public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, >> based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather >> systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by >> global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of >> all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, >> fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 03:35:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:35:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <0cee01ce1fbd$5e2b2950$1a817bf0$@gmail.com> Nick, Do I understand you to be saying that it is your preference that the rules/law governing the Internet be made bi-laterally between China and the US? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:21 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Dear Parminder, see below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse typos. If you want to schedule some time to talk, try this: http://meetme.so/nashton On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:19, parminder wrote: I've snipped the rest to focus on this point, which seems (to me, clearly others may see things differently) the most significant of your post. Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would be likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you see. Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new global situation: governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only because of a massive external threat or stress - which the negotiation is designed to deal with. What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 13 03:40:40 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:40:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51402D78.4050903@apc.org> Comment below: On 13/03/2013 09:25, parminder wrote: > > Dear Nick > > Some responses below > > > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> >> Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. >> Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, >> given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would >> be likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you >> see. > > What do you think of various human rights instruments, that were > globally negotiated, in times much worse than today. How do you > explain them? >> >> Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a >> codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new >> global situation: > > > I dont think we can right now jump into an ominbus Internet treaty, > and I am not sure it will ever be required/ useful. However, we can > start will trying to put together some higher level Internet > principles. We can also begin to discuss and try to seek solutions, > and as possibly codify them, on emergent issues like cross border data > flows, net neutrality, basic content flow and FoE guarantees, > regulation of global Internet business, global competition policy > frameworks in the Internet space, and so on. Agree this is necessary. > Before that we can and should try to put together a formal place > where such things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's > CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political will > to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there numerous > supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space to start > considering these issues, with a /possibility/ of being able to do > something about them. That is the problem right now, and it cant be > pushed away by providing generally pessimistic perspectives on the > world's political capabilities. Have we given up on the IGF being a space where serious discussion of this nature can take place? Discussion that results in outcomes of some kind? Has the cautious approach to the IGF adopted by some of its greatest supporters made it irrelevant? I would like to see the IGF used more effectively - I am not convinced that a new space will succeed in achieving what the space that we already have is not achieving with regards to formulating effective - public interest bound - responses to some of the issues Parminder identifies. Anriette > > >> governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their >> existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only >> because of a massive external threat or stress - which the >> negotiation is designed to deal with. > > Nick, you are referring to a classical political dilemma, and human > race has constantly surprised itself by rising above it and acting > collectively in larger public interest. As Hobbes described the human > life as solitary, poor, nasty, /brutish/, and /short /and//yet (or > because of that), they could enter into a social contract and > organise into political communities..... Everyone around me sees > enough problematic aspects of how the Internet is evolving, and they > are keen that if possible something should be done about it. Is it not > the view of the people you meet? > > BTW, did you see the latest Hollywood movie on Lincoln, that great > leader of people. Does it not explain how people can actually act what > appears to be against their narrow self interest, for a larger good. > Why else would a bunch of white American together decide to liberate > slaves (the whole movie being about this great phenomenon), and lose > on cheap captive labour, and all great enjoyments of life that come > with it? Can you explain this phenomenon, and I will explain to you > why countries, if put together, can, and will, indeed work out > agreements in public interest. > > parminder > > > > >> >>> What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I >>> consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from >>> public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, >>> based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather >>> systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by >>> global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination >>> of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, >>> fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance systems. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Mar 13 04:01:27 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:01:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <27CD7FE8-64E1-48E7-953C-B4002BD72768@ccianet.org> Inline responses below On 13 Mar 2013, at 08:25, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> >> Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would be likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you see. > > What do you think of various human rights instruments, that were globally negotiated, in times much worse than today. How do you explain them? That justifies my point perfectly actually: they were negotiated following general warfare, which is my point: only at such junctures is the global community able to create rules which are really new. At other points, the only rules created are small incremental evolutions. >> Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new global situation: > > > I dont think we can right now jump into an ominbus Internet treaty, and I am not sure it will ever be required/ useful. However, we can start will trying to put together some higher level Internet principles. We can also begin to discuss and try to seek solutions, and as possibly codify them, on emergent issues like cross border data flows, net neutrality, basic content flow and FoE guarantees, regulation of global Internet business, global competition policy frameworks in the Internet space, and so on. That's already taking place all over the world: there are fierce discussions about all around the world right now, in various aspects of policy development - and I'm not talking just in the traditional Internet organisations, quite the contrary. What are you proposing to add to that existing work that will be profoundly beneficial? Governments who are struggling to define their approaches to these issues at the national level simply will not adopt binding rules at the international level until they have some agreement nationally about what rules they want to have. > Before that we can and should try to put together a formal place where such things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political will to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there numerous supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space to start considering these issues, with a possibility of being able to do something about them. That is the problem right now, and it cant be pushed away by providing generally pessimistic perspectives on the world's political capabilities. Why? Why do you think that anyone is going to agree to move trade policy as regards the Internet from trade ministries to somewhere else or someplace else, for example? Irrespective of the value of doing so, it is a complete political non-starter. Do you really think a global body will do better with privacy policy? There is absolutely no consensus even in individual countries about what to do on this, and certainly no cross-national consensus even in relatively homogenous regions. The vast majority of countries who seem to be in favour of international regulation of privacy, in fact, are also the least democratic. Do you really imagine them getting what they want is likely to lead to more democracy or more individual liberty? >> governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only because of a massive external threat or stress - which the negotiation is designed to deal with. > > Nick, you are referring to a classical political dilemma, and human race has constantly surprised itself by rising above it and acting collectively in larger public interest. As Hobbes described the human life as Yes, it does do that - when faced with an existential threat or a major disruption to the established order (note the resistance to financial sector reform in many countries and the slow pace of change there, even with a major disruption. > Everyone around me sees enough problematic aspects of how the Internet is evolving, and they are keen that if possible something should be done about it. Is it not the view of the people you meet? Not really, no. What the people I meet here in Geneva and elsewhere are concerned with is getting everyone on the Internet, and maximising its value in helping improve the lot of actual people. Relatively few are interested in playing the current zero-sum-governance debate game. Most of the people I meet realise that the Internet is causing major transformational change across all aspects of life and that this is a trend that will continue. > BTW, did you see the latest Hollywood movie on Lincoln, that great leader of people. Does it not explain how people can actually act what appears to be against their narrow self interest, for a larger good. Why else would a bunch of white American together decide to liberate slaves (the whole movie being about this great phenomenon), and lose on cheap captive labour, and all great enjoyments of life that come with it? Can you explain this phenomenon, and I will explain to you why countries, if put together, can, and will, indeed work out agreements in public interest. I did, indeed - and I noted that many historians took issue with many aspects of the storyline too. Even Lincoln admitted that freeing the slaves was a deliberate policy choice which helped increase the manpower available to the North while causing disruption in the South due to the incentive it gave to the slaves to rebel and/or run away. All this does not diminish the achievement or the statesmanship - but it perfectly illustrates my point, that major shifts in human legal frameworks are preceded by major shifts in society or general warfare - not anticipated by them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Mar 13 04:03:19 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:03:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0cee01ce1fbd$5e2b2950$1a817bf0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <0cee01ce1fbd$5e2b2950$1a817bf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0000013d62c65c01-6ba5a7ff-a71b-444a-a7f2-87daa7884ae9-000000@email.amazonses.com> No. My point is that multilateral treatymaking is not done in advance of, but rather after, social and political change and as a means of recognising those changes and that the largest changes are made in cases where general warfare or other serious economic or socially-disruptive events have taken place. On 13 Mar 2013, at 08:35, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Nick, > > Do I understand you to be saying that it is your preference that the rules/law governing the Internet be made bi-laterally between China and the US? > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:21 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > Dear Parminder, see below > > -- > Regards, > > Nick > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse typos. If you want to schedule some time to talk, try this: http://meetme.so/nashton > > On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:19, parminder wrote: > > I've snipped the rest to focus on this point, which seems (to me, clearly others may see things differently) the most significant of your post. > > Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true statement. Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter these impacts, given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty, in this case, would be likely to cast in stone the very inequalities and dangers that you see. > > Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new global situation: governments are simply unwilling to do much that changes their existing legal system profoundly excepting very rarely and then only because of a massive external threat or stress - which the negotiation is designed to deal with. > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance systems. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 13 04:42:53 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:12:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <27CD7FE8-64E1-48E7-953C-B4002BD72768@ccianet.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> <27CD7FE8-64E1-48E7-953C-B4002BD72768@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <51403C0D.3050906@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 01:31 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > I did, indeed - and I noted that many historians took issue with many > aspects of the storyline too. Even Lincoln admitted that freeing the > slaves was a deliberate policy choice which helped increase the > manpower available to the North while causing disruption in the South > due to the incentive it gave to the slaves to rebel and/or run away. > > All this does not diminish the achievement or the statesmanship - but > it perfectly illustrates my point, that major shifts in human legal > frameworks are preceded by major shifts in society or general warfare > - not anticipated by them. 1. Enough structural changes have happened because of the Internet, and the directions of more are relatively clear, for it to be what the European Commission's Vice President a few years back called as the emergence of a 'constitutional moment' in relation to IG. Council of Europe held a workshop at an IGF with ' 'constitutional moment' in its title. 2. Enough number of times historically big political texts got done in anticipation, and in fact led to shaping of societies, as some may have followed events. 3. It is not only an issue of what generally happens, but what is desirable; do you really think that in global IG space political agreements should follow crises rather than anticipate them? Civil society takes up forwarding looking issues, positions and roles, it is not just in the business of cynical historical interpretations that deny our collective agency, and general good nature. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Mar 13 05:26:35 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:26:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:19 AM, parminder wrote: > It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. Among whom is this known, and do they in fact attribute it to narrow interests being less dispositive in multilateral contexts? I'm not arguing with you, just curious why you say this. As a political scientist who's reasonably well read in the vast scholarly and policy literatures on international institutions and cooperation, I can't say I've noticed a lot of people taking this stance or offering evidence thereof, so I'm curious. A few contrary thoughts for your consideration: To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to arrive at given more complexly divided interests. The TA offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, we might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, it depends. Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in large-n collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact clusters of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful and/or motivated by sharply defined interests. Outsiders then get pushed to conform with what these inner circle types have worked out. The problem in trade has been that the identities and mixed interest of the inner circles have diversified, and the outsiders have found fewer reasons to budge. Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and principles because they are "nested" agreements. For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of practice) and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the latter are absent presences in the former. It's like reading a piece of legislation that modifies another piece of legislation that is not fully incorporated into the text, you have read the docs back and forth to get the full picture. > > Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?). In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on the ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're committing a grievous moral or strategic error. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Mar 13 05:56:10 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:56:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51403C0D.3050906@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> <27CD7FE8-64E1-48E7-953C-B4002BD72768@ccianet.org> <51403C0D.3050906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8789A2A3-FAE6-4B94-9995-D829BF51CCEC@ccianet.org> On 13 Mar 2013, at 09:42, parminder wrote: > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 01:31 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> I did, indeed - and I noted that many historians took issue with many aspects of the storyline too. Even Lincoln admitted that freeing the slaves was a deliberate policy choice which helped increase the manpower available to the North while causing disruption in the South due to the incentive it gave to the slaves to rebel and/or run away. >> >> All this does not diminish the achievement or the statesmanship - but it perfectly illustrates my point, that major shifts in human legal frameworks are preceded by major shifts in society or general warfare - not anticipated by them. > > > 1. Enough structural changes have happened because of the Internet, and the directions of more are relatively clear, for it to be what the European Commission's Vice President a few years back called as the emergence of a 'constitutional moment' in relation to IG. Council of Europe held a workshop at an IGF with ' 'constitutional moment' in its title. I do not honestly see that there's anything like a sufficient consensus that this is true globally. > > 2. Enough number of times historically big political texts got done in anticipation, and in fact led to shaping of societies, as some may have followed events. When? Honestly, sitting here (perhaps without enough coffee) I cannot think of any that have stood the test of time. > 3. It is not only an issue of what generally happens, but what is desirable; do you really think that in global IG space political agreements should follow crises rather than anticipate them? Civil society takes up forwarding looking issues, positions and roles, it is not just in the business of cynical historical interpretations that deny our collective agency, and general good nature. I don't think I'm being cynical but rather pragmatic and as I have said before, civil society's willingness to push the other parts of society to think big, be bold, and be optimistic are wonderful and to be encouraged. What I would say is: concentrate on how to make a real, practical difference in people's lives. Expending enormous effort to create new bodies to debate things, in my opinion, rarely accomplishes that objective. I also don't see any crisis coming that needs to be anticipated. Are there practical improvements to participation in IG that can be made? Yes, there always are in every area of policy. Personally, it seems to me that persuading national and regional governments of the value of the Internet in social and economic terms, and getting them to create policies that are actually pro-people and that encourage the Internet to develop along those lines is likely to bear a lot more fruit for real people than creating UN processes to talk will. > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 06:41:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:41:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Why are there only two choices? Neither bi-lateral nor multi-lateral would be my choice. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks… > > > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement > negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible > senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China > determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps > you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out > "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the > "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or > less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards > "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. > (amongst others) would have input… > > > > Strange world you guys live in… > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. > Hellmonds > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael gurstein' > Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can be much > more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired objectives and are > much easier to negotiate and implement than any kind of global agreement, > which usually would take a decade or two to negotiate and would be watered > down so much that the initiators would see nothing left of their original > intent. > > > > Peter > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Nick > Ashton-Hart > > > Gesendet: 12 March 2013 22:17 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds > Betreff: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > See below > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick > > > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > > > On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein wrote: > > What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) > clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the > overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including > issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in > an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… > > > > There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are > seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has > obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block > ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services > (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also > human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which > obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. > > > > There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of > information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. > > > > This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states > from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a > country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. > > !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Mar 13 06:56:07 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:56:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3FF70199-CE71-42DD-987B-6D807C42F943@ccianet.org> Candidly, at least with respect to my comments, I don't see any connection between the below and what I offered... As to the idea that multilateral treaties are negotiated in a more open way: my experience is that this is more virtual than real. Sure, there may be more plenaries where accredited observers can see what is said, and sometimes make interventions, but the hard negotiations are almost always behind closed doors. Negotiating treaties - of any kind - between governments is not meant to be an open process and is unlikely ever to be fully so. On 13 Mar 2013, at 01:42, michael gurstein wrote: > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input… -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 07:01:06 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:01:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: > > In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that goes on > in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently at a ECOSOC > committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such kind of work > stands out even more when seen against the open and blatant private interest > based discussions and deal making that mark the so called loosely structured > private governance systems that dominate Internet governance. > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I > consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public > governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on > private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. > > > Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over something that > I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going to return the favour > and repost something that he recently posted to the ISOC list, which I think > exemplifies the mindset that you are referring to: > > 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a number of > other fora which are either already planned or in the making. Some of them > are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like the IGF; others are outside, > like the OECD's reports and meetings. The Internet community must see these > as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping > the Internet open, interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis > for permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to evolve > with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding all excess > attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it political or > private. > > 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known the work > of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG and the many > other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms that stem from the > Internet community. > > > So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem from the > Internet community" are entitled to participate in global norm-setting, I don't see where you get "only" from in that email. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 13 08:34:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:34:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation WG (was Re: China's next-generation internet...) In-Reply-To: <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130313133451.0dd50391@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > The forthcoming meetings of the UN Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation is a good opportunity to pull our head out of the sand > and make some positive contributions. A lot depends on what position > civil society will take, becuase it is the civil society that is > supposed to come up with higher value based positions in favour of > larger public interest; something which is very much needed in the > current stalemate arising from dominant actors on all sides sticking > to narrow partisan interest based positions. Speaking about the Enhanced Cooperation WG... Anriette, maybe you could give us an update on your recommendations to the Chair of the CSTD? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 13 08:43:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:43:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Process for addressing global policy issues (was Re: China's next-generation internet...) In-Reply-To: <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130313134325.58169b4c@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > Instead, lets recognise people's and countries' democratic > aspirations and real governance needs, and come with good faith to > the global IG table. Lets start with trying to agree on some highest > principles for the global governance of the Internet in public > interest, and also get down to trying to work out agreements on areas > like net neutrality, freedom of expression and association, > regulation of global Internet business, tax on global e-commerce, > security, spam, IPv6 implementation and so on. If we refuse to float > together we will sink separately; I mean all others than the most > powerful 1 percent (although I think the number is closer to 8-15 > percent, I will go with the currently in vogue percentage. :) ) So what are the options for processes that can reasonably be expected to lead to these global policy issues getting address in a good way? I have already mentioned my "Wisdom task Force" [1] proposal a while back (I've uploaded a revised version earlier today). [1] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Mar 13 08:53:11 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:53:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... Michael - Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational matters? I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or processes used in global operation. /John Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 08:53:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:53:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF outcomes (was Re: China's next-generation internet...) In-Reply-To: <51402D78.4050903@apc.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <1765453652017989820@unknownmsgid> <51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net> <51402D78.4050903@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130313135348.39c7af8b@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Before that we can and should try to put together a formal place > > where such things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's > > CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political > > will to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there > > numerous supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space > > to start considering these issues, with a /possibility/ of being > > able to do something about them. That is the problem right now, and > > it cant be pushed away by providing generally pessimistic > > perspectives on the world's political capabilities. > > Have we given up on the IGF being a space where serious discussion of > this nature can take place? Discussion that results in outcomes of > some kind? Has the cautious approach to the IGF adopted by some of > its greatest supporters made it irrelevant? > > I would like to see the IGF used more effectively - I am not > convinced that a new space will succeed in achieving what the space > that we already have is not achieving with regards to formulating > effective - public interest bound - responses to some of the issues > Parminder identifies. What kinds of processes are the IGF outcome documents intended to serve as input documents for? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 13 08:57:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:27:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 02:56 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:19 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater >> chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are >> bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower >> interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, >> bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' >> results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something >> which follows from the preceding statement. > > Among whom is this known, and do they in fact attribute it to narrow > interests being less dispositive in multilateral contexts? I'm not > arguing with you, just curious why you say this. As a political > scientist who's reasonably well read in the vast scholarly and policy > literatures on international institutions and cooperation, I can't say > I've noticed a lot of people taking this stance or offering evidence > thereof, so I'm curious. A few contrary thoughts for your consideration: Bill. First of all it should be made clear that I speak from a Southern point of view, and so when you ask among whom it is well know my response is, among Southern actors - from civil society and government - who engage with global governance issues. The bilateral and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US, and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done considerable normative work.) Isnt almost all higher level normative work done at UN/ multilateral level. Show me where a bilateral process has produced useful norms and principles. OF course, later are focussed on narrow interest based outcomes. Yes, narrow interests are brought into play as much in UN/ multilateral systems as well, but the sheer number and variety of actors, as well as, very importantly, established principles of process, equity etc, makes for movement towards higher norms based outcomes. It is also a basic democratic principle; more people/ actors are involved in decision making more the decisions serve all actors equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like the US and a developing country has strong elements of take it or leave it, and the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what if other similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements with the US. Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on commonness of interests of richer economies with certain structural characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. > > To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of > being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because > those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to > arrive at given more complexly divided interests. Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful. > The TA offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, we > might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too dismissive about such stuff. > More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, it > depends. They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not good. Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. > > Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in large-n > collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact clusters of > bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful and/or > motivated by sharply defined interests. Outsiders then get pushed to > conform with what these inner circle types have worked out. The > problem in trade has been that the identities and mixed interest of > the inner circles have diversified, and the outsiders have found fewer > reasons to budge. agree > > Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and > principles because they are "nested" agreements. I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms through small group and closed door agreements. > For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with the > WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of practice) > and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the latter are > absent presences in the former. It's like reading a piece of > legislation that modifies another piece of legislation that is not > fully incorporated into the text, you have read the docs back and > forth to get the full picture. Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO instruments. > >> >> Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil >> society has to make its considered value based choice whether it >> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when >> the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, >> perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, >> I see a distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in >> preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and >> IP to climate. > > I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily > follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values > choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral > are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?). This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the opposite argument look bad. I am asking just that the same actors should note resist multilateralism who merrily go about doing plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). This is a values issue and an inferior choice from that standpoint. > In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on the > ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, so > as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff (since > that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're committing > a grievous moral or strategic error. Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief, if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). regards parminder > > Best, > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 09:41:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:41:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> Message-ID: <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> John (Nick and McTim. I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the (US) President http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20As ia%20Society.pdf Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of the U.S. government. Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale. The international community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our economy against cyber-threats. >From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and the risk it poses-to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese industry and to our overall relations. Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these activities. Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. And the United States and China, the world's two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. . That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the public good of an open, secure Internet. Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is that the USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern" in this instance to "build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern". I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot 1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not "multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace) between the US and China 2. that this agreement would cover matters of "cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets") 3. that these matters could and most likely would affect the very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's central role in current Internet governance and the emerging role of China as the country with the greatest number of Internet users--("The United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector property") 4. that these bilateral relations will not be "multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in specifically identifying various of the international processes of which it is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so identified is I think indicative) also note that "the world's two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem". This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. Since the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported. Mike From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... Michael - Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational matters? I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or processes used in global operation. /John Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 09:57:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1587EB50-D9AD-4F4F-A7AF-65D17F07EA5D@hserus.net> That doesn't compute. The thrust of that speech is on industrial and military espionage against US based entities, by various actors (non state or not) based out of china, Even within the scope of a multilateral treaty, such issues will be handled bilaterally by the countries concerned --srs (iPad) On 13-Mar-2013, at 19:11, "michael gurstein" wrote: > John (Nick and McTim… > > I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the (US) President > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf > > Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. > > Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the > intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of the U.S. government. > > Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale. The international > community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our economy against cyber-threats. > > From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. > > First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and the risk it poses—to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese industry and to our overall relations. > Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these activities. > Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. > > We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. > And the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. > > Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. > … > > That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the public good of an open, secure Internet. > Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is that the USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern" in this instance to "build a constructive bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern". > > I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot > 1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not "multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace) between the US and China > 2. that this agreement would cover matters of "cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets") > 3. that these matters could and most likely would affect the very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's central role in current Internet governance and the emerging role of China as the country with the greatest number of Internet users--("The United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector property") > 4. that these bilateral relations will not be "multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in specifically identifying various of the international processes of which it is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so identified is I think indicative) also note that "the world’s two largest economies, both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem". > > This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. Since the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported. > > Mike > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... > > Michael - > > Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how > (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you > say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would > be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... > > Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational > matters? > > I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very > significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form > of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via > bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations > have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies > for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves > specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, > the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is > clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must > be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting > critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent > exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN > "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) > > If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and > Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical > resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy > principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not > mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or > processes used in global operation. > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Mar 13 10:19:08 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:19:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541499D8-42DF-41F4-B32C-752A73B4A2E8@istaff.org> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > John (Nick and McTim… > > I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the (US) President > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf > ... > This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. Yes, how these matters should be discussed (bi-lateral, multilateral, etc.) is indeed important. > Since the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported. Quite possibly, but I was trying to highlight one point of such an approach (whether the bilateral one you noted in the comments, or in a multilateral framework as you suggested)... It is extremely important to keep such frameworks developed by governments focused on principles and recommendations on public policy matters, and not on specific standards or processes used in global operation of the Internet. This is particularly important if we want one Internet, and are facing with multiple bi- or multi- lateral frameworks coming to various public policy outcomes; if they are recommendations, we can find a way to keep things running as one global Internet, if they specify conflicting standards or processes, that might not be the case. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Slower email keep right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 10:29:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:29:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <541499D8-42DF-41F4-B32C-752A73B4A2E8@istaff.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> <541499D8-42DF-41F4-B32C-752A73B4A2E8@istaff.org> Message-ID: <0e4401ce1ff7$3c42ff90$b4c8feb0$@gmail.com> John, I couldn't agree with you more of the need for one Internet and the technical requirements to maintain this. but for the seriousness with which these matters are being taken and the likelihood of whether or not niceties of "conflicting standards or processes" would be maintained under currently perceived conditions take a look at (WSJ) "WASHINGTON-The nation's top spies warned Tuesday of the rising threat of cyberattacks to national and economic security, comparing the concern more directly than before to the dangers posed by global terrorism." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887323826704578356182878527280.ht ml Mike From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:19 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: John (Nick and McTim. I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the (US) President http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20As ia%20Society.pdf ... This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. Yes, how these matters should be discussed (bi-lateral, multilateral, etc.) is indeed important. Since the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported. Quite possibly, but I was trying to highlight one point of such an approach (whether the bilateral one you noted in the comments, or in a multilateral framework as you suggested)... It is extremely important to keep such frameworks developed by governments focused on principles and recommendations on public policy matters, and not on specific standards or processes used in global operation of the Internet. This is particularly important if we want one Internet, and are facing with multiple bi- or multi- lateral frameworks coming to various public policy outcomes; if they are recommendations, we can find a way to keep things running as one global Internet, if they specify conflicting standards or processes, that might not be the case. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Slower email keep right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 10:35:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:35:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: "specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft ..." 3 things... I read the comments as saying China, please stop stealing. There's nothing in there about the need for a treaty on cybersecurity, just saying China's gone too far in its acquisition of intellectual property, data, anything digital that's not nailed down. A very public request that it stop. Adam On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > John (Nick and McTim… > > > > I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor > to the (US) President > > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf > > > > Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge > to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United > States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the > Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. > > > > Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and > communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the > > intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and > economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to > the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or > hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of > the U.S. government. > > > > Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns > about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and > proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an > unprecedented scale. The international > > community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the > President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our > economy against cyber-threats. > > > > From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and > discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue > to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national > networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private > sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of > cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. > > > > First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and > the risk it poses—to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese > industry and to our overall relations. > > Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to > these activities. > > Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue > to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. > > > > We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that > allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. > > And the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, both > dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. > > > > Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with > international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the > interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. > > … > > > > That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an > increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded > lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the > public good of an open, secure Internet. > > Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is that the > USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive bilateral > relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of > concern" in this instance to "build a constructive bilateral relationship > that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern". > > > > I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot > > 1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not > "multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in > cyberspace) between the US and China > > 2. that this agreement would cover matters of > "cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting > personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical > infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets") > > 3. that these matters could and most likely would affect the > very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's central role in > current Internet governance and the emerging role of China as the country > with the greatest number of Internet users--("The United States will do all > it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our > valuable public and private sector property") > > 4. that these bilateral relations will not be > "multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in > specifically identifying various of the international processes of which it > is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so identified is I think > indicative) also note that "the world’s two largest economies, both > dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem". > > > > This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which > need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be > addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework > including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all > governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the > issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we > oppose it and offer an alternative. Since the USG is among the most > significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues > the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach > suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an > alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral > framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to > take/be supported. > > > > Mike > > > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement > negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible > senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China > determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... > > > > Michael - > > > > Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how > > (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you > > say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would > > be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... > > > > Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational > > matters? > > > > I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very > > significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form > > of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via > > bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations > > have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies > > for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves > > specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, > > the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is > > clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must > > be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting > > critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent > > exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN > > "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) > > > > If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and > > Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical > > resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy > > principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not > > mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or > > processes used in global operation. > > > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 13 10:38:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:08:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: If you make the definition of nailed down a bit more specific .. "Something a large pry bar can't dislodge" .. you're spot on :) --srs (iPad) On 13-Mar-2013, at 20:05, Adam Peake wrote: > "specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft ..." 3 things... > > I read the comments as saying China, please stop stealing. There's > nothing in there about the need for a treaty on cybersecurity, just > saying China's gone too far in its acquisition of intellectual > property, data, anything digital that's not nailed down. A very > public request that it stop. > > Adam > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> John (Nick and McTim… >> >> >> >> I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor >> to the (US) President >> >> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf >> >> >> >> Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge >> to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United >> States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the >> Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. >> >> >> >> Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and >> communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the >> >> intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and >> economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to >> the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or >> hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of >> the U.S. government. >> >> >> >> Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns >> about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and >> proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an >> unprecedented scale. The international >> >> community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the >> President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our >> economy against cyber-threats. >> >> >> >> From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and >> discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue >> to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national >> networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private >> sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of >> cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. >> >> >> >> First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and >> the risk it poses—to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese >> industry and to our overall relations. >> >> Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to >> these activities. >> >> Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue >> to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. >> >> >> >> We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that >> allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. >> >> And the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, both >> dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. >> >> >> >> Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with >> international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the >> interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. >> >> … >> >> >> >> That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an >> increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded >> lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the >> public good of an open, secure Internet. >> >> Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is that the >> USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive bilateral >> relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of >> concern" in this instance to "build a constructive bilateral relationship >> that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern". >> >> >> >> I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot >> >> 1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not >> "multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in >> cyberspace) between the US and China >> >> 2. that this agreement would cover matters of >> "cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting >> personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical >> infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets") >> >> 3. that these matters could and most likely would affect the >> very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's central role in >> current Internet governance and the emerging role of China as the country >> with the greatest number of Internet users--("The United States will do all >> it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our >> valuable public and private sector property") >> >> 4. that these bilateral relations will not be >> "multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in >> specifically identifying various of the international processes of which it >> is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so identified is I think >> indicative) also note that "the world’s two largest economies, both >> dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem". >> >> >> >> This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which >> need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be >> addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework >> including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all >> governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the >> issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we >> oppose it and offer an alternative. Since the USG is among the most >> significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues >> the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach >> suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an >> alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral >> framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to >> take/be supported. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater >> - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist >> >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> >> You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement >> negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible >> senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China >> determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... >> >> >> >> Michael - >> >> >> >> Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how >> >> (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you >> >> say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would >> >> be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... >> >> >> >> Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational >> >> matters? >> >> >> >> I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very >> >> significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form >> >> of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via >> >> bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations >> >> have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies >> >> for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves >> >> specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, >> >> the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is >> >> clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must >> >> be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting >> >> critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent >> >> exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN >> >> "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) >> >> >> >> If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and >> >> Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical >> >> resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy >> >> principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not >> >> mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or >> >> processes used in global operation. >> >> >> >> /John >> >> >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 10:50:47 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:50:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e5101ce1ffa$2d451430$87cf3c90$@gmail.com> Adam, you might be right (and I'm certainly not familiar with diplomatic code words) but... "establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace" and "diplomatic efforts, consistent with international law" and "public good of an open, secure Internet"... suggests a concern with something beyond "cyber-endabled theft" (and of course see the Wall Street Journal article that I pointed to in my response to John Curran. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist "specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft ..." 3 things... I read the comments as saying China, please stop stealing. There's nothing in there about the need for a treaty on cybersecurity, just saying China's gone too far in its acquisition of intellectual property, data, anything digital that's not nailed down. A very public request that it stop. Adam On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > John (Nick and McTim. > > > > I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security > Advisor to the (US) President > > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilo > n%20Asia%20Society.pdf > > > > Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing > challenge to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as > the United States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring > that the Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable. > > > > Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data > and communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, > or the > > intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to > innovation and economic growth. It is in this last category that our > concerns have moved to the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking > about ordinary cybercrime or hacking. And, this is not solely a > national security concern or a concern of the U.S. government. > > > > Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious > concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business > information and proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions > emanating from China on an unprecedented scale. The international > > community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As > the President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to > protect our economy against cyber-threats. > > > > From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and > discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will > continue to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our > national networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public > and private sector property. But, specifically with respect to the > issue of cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side. > > > > First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem > and the risk it poses-to international trade, to the reputation of > Chinese industry and to our overall relations. > > Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a > stop to these activities. > > Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct > dialogue to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace. > > > > We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship > that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern. > > And the United States and China, the world's two largest economies, > both dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem. > > > > Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with > international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve > the interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region. > > . > > > > That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes > with an increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and > unimpeded lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will > depend on the public good of an open, secure Internet. > > Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is > that the USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive > bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on > priority issues of concern" in this instance to "build a constructive > bilateral relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern". > > > > I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot > > 1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not > "multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in > cyberspace) between the US and China > > 2. that this agreement would cover matters of > "cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting > personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical > infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets") > > 3. that these matters could and most likely would > affect the very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's > central role in current Internet governance and the emerging role of > China as the country with the greatest number of Internet users--("The > United States will do all it must to protect our national networks, > critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private sector > property") > > 4. that these bilateral relations will not be > "multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in > specifically identifying various of the international processes of > which it is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so > identified is I think > indicative) also note that "the world's two largest economies, both > dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem". > > > > This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues > which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or > should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader > framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet > i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are > discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either > support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. Since > the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a > non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the > status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have > considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the > suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would > appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported. > > > > Mike > > > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a > world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement > negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the > responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats > in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ... > > > > Michael - > > > > Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how > > (i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" > you > > say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would > > be "aspects of operation of the Internet"... > > > > Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational > > matters? > > > > I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very > > significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the > form > > of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via > > bi/multilateral work with other governments.) Such recommendations > > have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies > > for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves > > specific processes for technical or operational aspects. For example, > > the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it > is > > clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there > must > > be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting > > critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the > recent > > exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN > > "Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...) > > > > If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards > and > > Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as > critical > > resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy > > principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not > > mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or > > processes used in global operation. > > > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone. May cause headaches or dizziness. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Mar 13 11:01:24 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:01:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> Hi P On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 02:56 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:19 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. >> >> Among whom is this known, and do they in fact attribute it to narrow interests being less dispositive in multilateral contexts? I'm not arguing with you, just curious why you say this. As a political scientist who's reasonably well read in the vast scholarly and policy literatures on international institutions and cooperation, I can't say I've noticed a lot of people taking this stance or offering evidence thereof, so I'm curious. A few contrary thoughts for your consideration: > > Bill. > > First of all it should be made clear that I speak from a Southern point of view, Yes, got that. Of course, we disagree on whether it's sensible to speak of uniform Northern and Southern views, but no matter. > and so when you ask among whom it is well know my response is, among Southern actors - from civil society and government - who engage with global governance issues. The bilateral and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US, and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done considerable normative work.) You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and plurilateral agreements. Although I've never been clear whether the fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great satan. But none of this seems integrally related to what seemed to be empirical statement, which just didn't comport with "what everyone knows" among international relations specialists. Hence my question. > > Isnt almost all higher level normative work done at UN/ multilateral level. Show me where a bilateral process has produced useful norms and principles. Just off my head, the overarching principles that were included in many bilateral, regional, and plurilateral telegraph agreements in the 1840s and 1850s were later taken to the global level with the creation of the ITU. Much of the work devising guiding principles for transborder data flows, international trade in services, digital intellectual property, network security, privacy, and so on took place in the OECD, G8, EU, and others before moving into the broad multilateral level. In none of these cases did the work on devising principles just start de novo on a multilateral basis. I'm sure if one were to spend some time looking at experiences in other global issue areas the same dynamic would be found over and over again, from arms control to environment and beyond. > OF course, later are focussed on narrow interest based outcomes. Yes, narrow interests are brought into play as much in UN/ multilateral systems as well, but the sheer number and variety of actors, as well as, very importantly, established principles of process, equity etc, makes for movement towards higher norms based outcomes. While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems that are truly global in scope, I don't think it's empirically supportable to claim that broad ML processes are inherently more consistent with the procedural norms you favor because there are more actors or some greater fealty to principled behavior. Compare say the UN vs the Europe or the Americas machinery. > It is also a basic democratic principle; more people/ actors are involved in decision making more the decisions serve all actors equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like the US and a developing country has strong elements of take it or leave it, and the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what if other similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements with the US. Same goes for bilaterals between say India and Bangledesh? > Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on commonness of interests of richer economies with certain structural characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. > > >> >> To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to arrive at given more complexly divided interests. > > Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful. I think international human rights are important, yes >> The TA offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, we might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) > > Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too dismissive about such stuff. I'm not dismissive of the WSIS, please don't start with the putting words in other people's mouths thing yet again > >> More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, it depends. > > They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not good. > > Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. I have supported discussion of principles…. All this seems pretty far from the statements to which I was responding, though... > > >> >> Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in large-n collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact clusters of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful and/or motivated by sharply defined interests. Outsiders then get pushed to conform with what these inner circle types have worked out. The problem in trade has been that the identities and mixed interest of the inner circles have diversified, and the outsiders have found fewer reasons to budge. > > agree >> >> Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and principles because they are "nested" agreements. > > I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms through small group and closed door agreements. Will we ever stop hearing SOPA discussed as if it were established policy? It was proposed by some congress critters under pressure from some lobbyists and was defeated. By others with "a Northern perspective." The TPP I agree is problematic, but that's got a lot to do with the fact that multilateralism in the WTO has broken down very substantially. There's a big push here in Europe for a free trade deal with the US on the same grounds. > >> For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of practice) and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the latter are absent presences in the former. It's like reading a piece of legislation that modifies another piece of legislation that is not fully incorporated into the text, you have read the docs back and forth to get the full picture. > > Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO instruments. They can go beyond them in depth of liberalization affected through the schedules of commitments, but they have to comport with the fundamental principles of the trade system, e.g. MFN, national treatment, etc. Of course, many trade mavens argue that while this is nominally true, there are incentives there to cheat, and so each such agreement gets looked at closely for exclusionary impact even if there's a lack of declared intent. >> >>> >>> Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. >> >> >> I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?). > > This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the opposite argument look bad. It's neither 'extreme' or trying to make your argument look bad. You said CS has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones. So you're saying one should prefer one to the other and its' a matter of values. And I was simply saying I disagree in that having certain values doesn't necessarily require such a choice, especially when non-ML agreements may have a greater impact on values we care about in some cases... > I am asking just that the same actors should note resist multilateralism who merrily go about doing plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). This is a values issue and an inferior choice from that standpoint. > > >> In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on the ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're committing a grievous moral or strategic error. > > Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief, if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). But that's not extreme. Ok, well I was interested in understanding your original statement > It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. And I think I've got it now. All the best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Mar 13 11:02:36 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:02:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net>,<514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BCD25C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Jeremy, there is no "only" in what I wrote. Sad to read that an academic finds critique of his/her work, and questions on his opinions about an organization he belongs to, an "attack", but we already went throught that and I am done here. Your misread of my statements is lamentable and once again, "not even wrong", to quote Wolfgang Pauli yet again. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de marzo de 2013 00:03 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark the so called loosely structured private governance systems that dominate Internet governance. What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over something that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going to return the favour and repost something that he recently posted to the ISOC list, which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are referring to: 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a number of other fora which are either already planned or in the making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet open, interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it political or private. 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms that stem from the Internet community. So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem from the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes far to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in constraining the development of the IGF. Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech showed, even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did acknowledge that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide an alternative forum than the ITU to which developing countries could turn to address their concerns. Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is not, and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, and that they can't sweep away intergovernmental processes (especially multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the road"... -- 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Mar 13 11:46:37 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:46:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] 2013 Cyber Dialogue Conference - Info & Blog posts of interest.. Message-ID: Wanted to share with folks on the list details of the 2013 Cyber Dialogue Conference that is taking place in Toronto this coming weekend. Below is a short conference description as well as links to blog posts related to the conference. regards Robert -- 2013 Cyber Dialogue Conference - http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/ The Cyber Dialogue conference, presented by the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, convenes an influential mix of global leaders from government, civil society, academia and private enterprise to participate in a series of facilitated public plenary conversations and working groups around cyberspace security and governance. Governance without Government in Cyberspace? As cyberspace continues its rapid growth, embedding itself deeper into everything around us and helping to shape our identities, the models, norms, rules, and principles which have until now governed the US-anchored Internet are coming under stress. As cyber demographics shift to the global South and East, alternative models are being developed outside of the Internet’s old North Atlantic core. New rules and norms are spreading as practices grow and diversify. How to govern cyberspace in our intensely globalized world has become an acute public policy issue, for us all. In the third annual Cyber Dialogue, participants will address questions around the theme of “Governance without Government in Cyberspace?” Phrased deliberately as an open question, we shall interrogate what are the proper roles and limits for public and private authority in cyberspace across a range of fundamental issues. What power can states, private companies, and civil society exercise in this domain? What is the appropriate balance of power among the increasingly diverse set of cyber stakeholders, from the local to the global? Who, and whose values, will set the stage for the future of cyberspace governance? What are the checks and balances? Blog Posts (from leading experts) Facing the costs of an open Internet – by Karl Kathuria http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/facing-the-costs-of-an-open-internet-by-karl-kathuria/ Democratic state surveillance, transparency and trust – by Andrew Clement http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/democratic-state-surveillance-transparency-and-trust-by-andrew-clement/ Against Hypocrisy: Updating Export Controls for the Digital Age – by Danielle Kehl and Tim Maurer http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/against-hypocrisy-updating-export-controls-for-the-digital-age-by-danielle-kehl-and-tim-maurer/ Watching the Watchers: A Role for the ITU in the Internet Age – by Jonathon W. Penney http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/watching-the-watchers-a-role-for-the-itu-in-the-internet-age-by-jonathon-w-penney/ WCIT-12: The Shadow at Evening rising – by Alexander Klimburg http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/wcit-12-the-shadow-at-evening-rising-by-alexander-klimburg/ Hacking back, signaling, and state-society relations – by Adam Segal http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/hacking-back-signaling-and-state-society-relations-by-adam-segal/ Arms Trade as Analogy – by James Lewis http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/03/arms-trade-as-analogy-by-james-lewis/ Global Governance and Cyberspace: Fortresses or Oases? – by Paul Meyer http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/02/global-governance-and-cyberspace-fortresses-or-oases-by-paul-meyer/ A Scene from the Road to Cyber Governance: The Budapest Cyberspace Conference – by Roger Hurwitz http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2013/02/a-scene-from-the-road-to-cyber-governance-the-budapest-cyberspace-conference/ -- Robert Guerra Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 13 11:53:26 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:53:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> Message-ID: <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Dear all *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation* *Background* I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society that know them and that have worked with them. I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. The composition of the selection group was as follows: Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and convenor of the group. I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much of the period that we had to do our work. To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. *Nominees* To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them first in case they have any objection to this. *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' or supported by other individuals or organisations. To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a requirement in the call for nominations. *Scoring process* Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. The criteria were as follows: * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with conflicting interests. *Shortlist* Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to regional and gender balance. *Submission to CSTD Chair* After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. Anriette Esterhuysen -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 13 12:42:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:42:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BCD25C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BCD25C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20130313174238.4a93a72e@quill.bollow.ch> Alejandro, Jeremy's "only" is a reasonable extrapolation from your characterization of various fora including the IGF that don't "stem from the Internet community" with the words "The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal". While I strongly agree with the goal that you describe, I equally strongly disagree with the view that it is the only goal that matters. Greetings, Norbert Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Jeremy, > > there is no "only" in what I wrote. > > Sad to read that an academic finds critique of his/her work, and > questions on his opinions about an organization he belongs to, an > "attack", but we already went throught that and I am done here. > > Your misread of my statements is lamentable and once again, "not even > wrong", to quote Wolfgang Pauli yet again. > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jeremy Malcolm > [jeremy at ciroap.org] Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de marzo de 2013 00:03 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] China's > next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - > New Scientist > > On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: > In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that > goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently > at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such > kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and > blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark > the so called loosely structured private governance systems that > dominate Internet governance. > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I > consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from > public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, > based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather > systemic. > > Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over > something that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going > to return the favour and repost something that he recently posted to > the ISOC list, which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are > referring to: > > > 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a > number of other fora which are either already planned or in the > making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like > the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. > The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall > hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet open, > interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for > permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to > evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding > all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it > political or private. > > 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known > the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG > and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms > that stem from the Internet community. > > > So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem > from the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global > norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as > bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes > far to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in > constraining the development of the IGF. > > Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech > showed, even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did > acknowledge that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide > an alternative forum than the ITU to which developing countries could > turn to address their concerns. > > Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to > realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is > not, and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, > and that they can't sweep away intergovernmental processes > (especially multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the road"... > > -- > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Wed Mar 13 13:00:16 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:00:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <850F2E33-657B-4068-B56D-792C096BF62D@telus.net> On 2013-03-13, at 7:35 AM, Adam Peake wrote: I read the comments as saying China, please stop stealing. There's > nothing in there about the need for a treaty on cybersecurity, just > saying China's gone too far in its acquisition of intellectual > property, data, anything digital that's not nailed down. A very > public request that it stop. A more diplomatic reading of the message might be - if you stop stealing, we will too. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Mar 13 13:02:23 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:02:23 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0e5101ce1ffa$2d451430$87cf3c90$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> <0e5101ce1ffa$2d451430$87cf3c90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <010e01ce200c$88bf0700$9a3d1500$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Ho, ho ho...... waaaaaait a minute here....... This whole discussion seems to be an example of what could happen if you put a stick in a hornets nest. Mike started by posting two articles: one about the US telling China to put a stop to widespread espionage and hacking emanating from their country, and another one which claims China has a better grip on the next generation Internet. To which I asked Mike what his opinions were and he claimed that these articles were evidence of the fact that we need a global agreement to cover cyberspace. To which I replied that he was jumping to conclusions because nothing in these articles hinted at a need for a global agreement. In fact, I had cited a couple of dangers emanating from the "superior" Chinese Internet and posited that for the former article on US-China relations there is no need for a global agreement because any quips the US may have with the Chinese will be better dealt with on a bilateral basis. After that, "all hell broke loose", and I think many have gone on a tangential to espouse their general feelings about multilateralism or multistakeholderism one way or the other. I'm not going to comment on all that has been said here under this topic, but will try to get back to Mike's assertions and questions. Mike wrote: "I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. " As to the US-China problem: Both countries have strong economic interests that ties the two countries together in a symbiotic way. One party is telling the other that it feels something is wrong and asks for remedies to be applied by the other party. It is clear that the underlying issue is that "if you don't fix it, we're going to have a bigger problem." So, this simply calls for bilateral diplomatic negotiations to fix the issue. Whether or not India, Brazil or others also have a problem with cyber-snooping by another country does not change the current situation at hand. As to the threat to the end-to-end Internet that is posed by various aspects of the Chinese Intranet and their control, monitor and surveillance mechanisms, I think this space here is too limited to bring you up to par on the technical issues. But what I don't understand is your reference to "the absence of some larger framework." What do you mean by that? Then, Mike also asked this question: "You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input." No, I did not say that. All I said was that the two articles you cited as proof for a need for a global agreement did not provide sufficient evidence and you did not provide any additional food for thought that would have made the linkage (my reference to your "jumping to conclusions"). All I was saying that bilateral problems (Chinese hackers spying on US companies) are better dealt with on a bilateral basis. Secondly, as you may infer by reading the Tunis Agenda on the Information Society, i.e. the final WSIS document, the "operation of the Internet" is not subject to negotiation by states alone, whether this be bilateral or multilateral. According to article 69, The "day to day technical and operational matters" is left in the hands of the business and technical bodies. The only thing that states reserved the right to do (article 35.a) was to discuss principles of public policy amongst each other. On the other hand, article 35 begins bay saying "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations." This is echoed in article 68, which says "[...] We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders." So, even in issues relating to public policy, other stakeholders should be involved. So, no, I don't think plutocrats in the US or China should discuss alone and behind closed doors the operational matters of the Internet on a bilateral basis. I think it is best for those engaging in the discussion to keep focused on the current subject matter, and not to enlarge every discussion to encompass the whole wide world of the Internet. Ok, I think that's enough food for thought for now. Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Mar 13 13:03:22 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:03:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com>,<51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CA6AB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents: For sure global agreements are preferrable from point of view of international law; and for establishment of norms and principles short of even 'soft law.' For sure global agreements are harder to reach than bilateral agreements. And for sure global agreements tend to leave more - wiggle room - for nations to opt out explicitly of certain provisions, or violate the global agreement without suffering consequences. Whereas, bilaterals, as the name implies, are either agreeable to the 2 parties, or not. In the early wave of e-commerce, the US did a load of bilateral agreements, which led to similar worries to those expressed. Then...due to DC political gridlock as usual, even bilateral deals grew increasingly difficult to jam through Congress, unchanged/without renegotiation by Congress, which of course majorly - annoyed - the other national government(s). Odds that a bilateral with China even if agreeable to both national governments, gains Senate approval, in current political climate is above zero, but not by much. (A Republican Senator nominated for Secretary of Defense by a Democratic President was filibustered by - Republicans? - yeah that's how toxic Washington is these days.) Which no doubt the Chinese negotiators know perfectly well. So....just cuz they may talk, does not mean an agreement will be reached; nor does it mean an agreement even if reached will ever be implemented. Which is another way of saying there is still plenty of time for global Internet governance discussions to resume/continue while bilateral talks take place; where/how/on what basis is another question. (IGF? Anyone, everyone?? Hello??) Less optimistically, note the WTO has been stuck - in its own global gridlock - due to conflicts in views and interests between developed and developing nations, for over a decade. >From that view, fact the WCIT/ITU - is in same state as WTO - is just current global geopolitical business as usual, unfortunately. Which may, Parminder, suggest that global cs folks seeking to keep the Internet away from the gridlock of global state to state discussions...are being both idealistic in upholding cs values in the face of other values; and yeah ok, cynical realpolitik players focused on the art of the possible. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. While there certainly is this unique context of global IG about the power of states vis a vis the global communication realm, and the perverse political incentives than this issue brings in, civil society still must aim for higher norms and principle based universalistic agreements over narrow interests based opportunistic ones. Like Michael, I am surprised and disconcerted that there is open advocacy in a civil society group against such universalistic agreements in favour of narrow interests based bilateral ones. The latter never serve the more marginalised, whose interests progressive civil society should be representing. Remember, human rights instruments are also multilaterally negotiated texts, something which was done at a time when a much smaller percentage of countries were democracies then are today! In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark the so called loosely structured private governance systems that dominate Internet governance. What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that underlie public governance systems. parminder On Wednesday 13 March 2013 06:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks… You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input… Strange world you guys live in… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. Hellmonds Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael gurstein' Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can be much more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired objectives and are much easier to negotiate and implement than any kind of global agreement, which usually would take a decade or two to negotiate and would be watered down so much that the initiators would see nothing left of their original intent. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: 12 March 2013 22:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds Betreff: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist See below -- Regards, Nick Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein > wrote: What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Mar 13 13:04:00 2013 From: apisan at unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <20130313174238.4a93a72e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BCD25C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130313174238.4a93a72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1553567129-1363194245-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1641589064-@b26.c13.bise6.blackberry> Norbert, The only "only" goal is the organic growth of a free Internet, able to serve all people with interoperability and innovation. Anything else is putting words in my mouth. "It isn't even wrong". Alejandro Pisanty Enviado desde/Sent from BlackBerry® ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NUMERO DE TELEFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MEXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:42:38 To: ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Alejandro, Jeremy's "only" is a reasonable extrapolation from your characterization of various fora including the IGF that don't "stem from the Internet community" with the words "The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal". While I strongly agree with the goal that you describe, I equally strongly disagree with the view that it is the only goal that matters. Greetings, Norbert Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Jeremy, > > there is no "only" in what I wrote. > > Sad to read that an academic finds critique of his/her work, and > questions on his opinions about an organization he belongs to, an > "attack", but we already went throught that and I am done here. > > Your misread of my statements is lamentable and once again, "not even > wrong", to quote Wolfgang Pauli yet again. > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jeremy Malcolm > [jeremy at ciroap.org] Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de marzo de 2013 00:03 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] China's > next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - > New Scientist > > On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: > In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that > goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw recently > at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific knowledge. Such > kind of work stands out even more when seen against the open and > blatant private interest based discussions and deal making that mark > the so called loosely structured private governance systems that > dominate Internet governance. > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I > consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from > public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, > based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather > systemic. > > Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over > something that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going > to return the favour and repost something that he recently posted to > the ISOC list, which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are > referring to: > > > 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a > number of other fora which are either already planned or in the > making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like > the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. > The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall > hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet open, > interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for > permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to > evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding > all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be it > political or private. > > 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known > the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG > and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms > that stem from the Internet community. > > > So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem > from the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global > norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as > bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes > far to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in > constraining the development of the IGF. > > Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech > showed, even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did > acknowledge that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide > an alternative forum than the ITU to which developing countries could > turn to address their concerns. > > Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to > realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is > not, and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet governance, > and that they can't sweep away intergovernmental processes > (especially multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the road"... > > -- > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 13:28:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:28:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <1553567129-1363194245-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1641589064-@b26.c13.bise6.blackberry> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <514016BC.9060305@ciroap.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BCD25C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20130313174238.4a93a72e@quill.bollow.ch> <1553567129-1363194245-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1641589064-@b26.c13.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <20130313182858.1e51ed4c@quill.bollow.ch> Alejandro, the assertion about the IGF and some other fora which don't "stem from the Internet community" that "the Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal" is not putting words into your mouth. It is something that you have explicitly written. Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:04:00 +0000 schrieb "Alejandro Pisanty" : > Norbert, > > The only "only" goal is the organic growth of a free Internet, able > to serve all people with interoperability and innovation. > > Anything else is putting words in my mouth. "It isn't even wrong". > > Alejandro Pisanty > Enviado desde/Sent from BlackBerry® > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NUMERO DE TELEFONO > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 DESDE MEXICO > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:42:38 > To: ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Baruch Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a > world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > Alejandro, > > Jeremy's "only" is a reasonable extrapolation from your > characterization of various fora including the IGF that don't "stem > from the Internet community" with the words "The Internet > community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall hurdles!!) on the > road to our single goal". > > While I strongly agree with the goal that you describe, I equally > strongly disagree with the view that it is the only goal that matters. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > Jeremy, > > > > there is no "only" in what I wrote. > > > > Sad to read that an academic finds critique of his/her work, and > > questions on his opinions about an organization he belongs to, an > > "attack", but we already went throught that and I am done here. > > > > Your misread of my statements is lamentable and once again, "not > > even wrong", to quote Wolfgang Pauli yet again. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > Facultad de Química UNAM > > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: > > http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, > > http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________ > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jeremy Malcolm > > [jeremy at ciroap.org] Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de marzo de 2013 00:03 > > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] > > China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 > > March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > On 13/03/13 13:19, parminder wrote: > > In fact, I am often deeply touched by the deep value based work that > > goes on in the multilateral systems, for instance what I saw > > recently at a ECOSOC committee working on access to scientific > > knowledge. Such kind of work stands out even more when seen against > > the open and blatant private interest based discussions and deal > > making that mark the so called loosely structured private > > governance systems that dominate Internet governance. > > > > What is happening at the larger social-structural level, and which I > > consider as the greatest threat to democracy, is a clear move from > > public governance, based on social contract, to private governance, > > based on private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather > > systemic. > > > > Not too long ago, Alejandro attacked me on an ISOC list over > > something that I had posted to the governance list, so I'm now going > > to return the favour and repost something that he recently posted to > > the ISOC list, which I think exemplifies the mindset that you are > > referring to: > > > > > > 4. Looking forward, we will have the WTPF and the Plenipot, and a > > number of other fora which are either already planned or in the > > making. Some of them are not strictly under the ITU umbrella, like > > the IGF; others are outside, like the OECD's reports and meetings. > > The Internet community must see these as bumps (sometimes tall > > hurdles!!) on the road to our single goal: keeping the Internet > > open, interoperable, end-to-end, able to evolve, and as a basis for > > permissionless innovation. Internet Governance must continue to > > evolve with the full range of stakeholders taking part and avoiding > > all excess attempts to control the Internet for a single party, be > > it political or private. > > > > 5. To that end we must continue to strengthen and make widely known > > the work of ISOC, the IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, the ccTLDs, MAAWG, APWG > > and the many other - existing or emerging - bodies and mechanisms > > that stem from the Internet community. > > > > > > So here we have it that only the "bodies and mechanisms that stem > > from the Internet community" are entitled to participate in global > > norm-setting, and that "other fora like the IGF" are to be "seen as > > bumps on the road". A very telling observation, and one that goes > > far to explain the persistence of Alejandro and his colleagues in > > constraining the development of the IGF. > > > > Meanwhile, as Michael's link to Commissioner McDowell's speech > > showed, even he, underneath the usual crackpot fear-mongering, did > > acknowledge that the IGF would need to develop if it were to provide > > an alternative forum than the ITU to which developing countries > > could turn to address their concerns. > > > > Just wondering how long it will take for the technical community to > > realise that their little universe of Internet community bodies is > > not, and can never be, the be-all and end-all of Internet > > governance, and that they can't sweep away intergovernmental > > processes (especially multi-stakeholder ones) as just "bumps in the > > road"... > > > > -- > > > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 13:36:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:36:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <5140b12c.c46f0e0a.1bef.ffff9ff4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$%hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <80EE1F08-DD24-4908-AC63-6337A8365828@istaff.org> <0dea01ce1ff0$93bf6850$bb3e38f0$@gmail.com> <0e5101ce1ffa$2d451430$87cf3c90$@gmail.com> <5140b12c.c46f0e0a.1bef.ffff9ff4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <0f6701ce2011$42ee7620$c8cb6260$@gmail.com> Peter, I can only reply to you as I did to John etc. which is that it seems that the push in the US now seems to be to put the Internet (including/especially the relationship with China as pointed to in the speech by the Security Advisor to the US President) into the overall context of "security" (and even as per the WSJ article I quoted "anti-terrorism"!). As we all know the US has been conducting a "War on Terror" for half a generation and it is my belief, subject to disconfirmation by the many subscribers to this list with much more knowledge about these specific subjects than I, that once something is assimilated into that stream all bets/agreements/protocols "are off". Someone recently on this list suggested that only in times of (perceived?) extreme duress (such as wartime) are global agreements possible. As they say in the ads... Are we there yet? M -----Original Message----- From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'michael gurstein' Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist Ho, ho ho...... waaaaaait a minute here....... This whole discussion seems to be an example of what could happen if you put a stick in a hornets nest. Mike started by posting two articles: one about the US telling China to put a stop to widespread espionage and hacking emanating from their country, and another one which claims China has a better grip on the next generation Internet. To which I asked Mike what his opinions were and he claimed that these articles were evidence of the fact that we need a global agreement to cover cyberspace. To which I replied that he was jumping to conclusions because nothing in these articles hinted at a need for a global agreement. In fact, I had cited a couple of dangers emanating from the "superior" Chinese Internet and posited that for the former article on US-China relations there is no need for a global agreement because any quips the US may have with the Chinese will be better dealt with on a bilateral basis. After that, "all hell broke loose", and I think many have gone on a tangential to espouse their general feelings about multilateralism or multistakeholderism one way or the other. I'm not going to comment on all that has been said here under this topic, but will try to get back to Mike's assertions and questions. Mike wrote: "I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression" (cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science might be) in the absence of some larger framework. " As to the US-China problem: Both countries have strong economic interests that ties the two countries together in a symbiotic way. One party is telling the other that it feels something is wrong and asks for remedies to be applied by the other party. It is clear that the underlying issue is that "if you don't fix it, we're going to have a bigger problem." So, this simply calls for bilateral diplomatic negotiations to fix the issue. Whether or not India, Brazil or others also have a problem with cyber-snooping by another country does not change the current situation at hand. As to the threat to the end-to-end Internet that is posed by various aspects of the Chinese Intranet and their control, monitor and surveillance mechanisms, I think this space here is too limited to bring you up to par on the technical issues. But what I don't understand is your reference to "the absence of some larger framework." What do you mean by that? Then, Mike also asked this question: "You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input." No, I did not say that. All I said was that the two articles you cited as proof for a need for a global agreement did not provide sufficient evidence and you did not provide any additional food for thought that would have made the linkage (my reference to your "jumping to conclusions"). All I was saying that bilateral problems (Chinese hackers spying on US companies) are better dealt with on a bilateral basis. Secondly, as you may infer by reading the Tunis Agenda on the Information Society, i.e. the final WSIS document, the "operation of the Internet" is not subject to negotiation by states alone, whether this be bilateral or multilateral. According to article 69, The "day to day technical and operational matters" is left in the hands of the business and technical bodies. The only thing that states reserved the right to do (article 35.a) was to discuss principles of public policy amongst each other. On the other hand, article 35 begins bay saying "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations." This is echoed in article 68, which says "[...] We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders." So, even in issues relating to public policy, other stakeholders should be involved. So, no, I don't think plutocrats in the US or China should discuss alone and behind closed doors the operational matters of the Internet on a bilateral basis. I think it is best for those engaging in the discussion to keep focused on the current subject matter, and not to enlarge every discussion to encompass the whole wide world of the Internet. Ok, I think that's enough food for thought for now. Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 16:13:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:13:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Thank you for this. It is also great to see a really excellent group and diverse people who participated in assisting you in the selection process. Kindly let us know the results of the selection. Warm Regards, Sala On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > Enhanced Cooperation* > > *Background* > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > that know them and that have worked with them. > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > convenor of the group. > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > of the period that we had to do our work. > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > *Nominees* > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > first in case they have any objection to this. > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > requirement in the call for nominations. > > *Scoring process* > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > conflicting interests. > > > *Shortlist* > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > regional and gender balance. > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet > when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD > will do this as quickly as possible. > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves > that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be > opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever > processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > -- > ------------------------------**------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 16:25:00 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:25:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette wrote; "As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage." -- 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, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > Thank you for this. It is also great to see a really excellent group and > diverse people who participated in assisting you in the selection process. > > Kindly let us know the results of the selection. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >> Enhanced Cooperation* >> >> *Background* >> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >> >> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >> that know them and that have worked with them. >> >> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >> >> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >> convenor of the group. >> >> >> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >> of the period that we had to do our work. >> >> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >> >> *Nominees* >> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >> first in case they have any objection to this. >> >> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >> >> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >> requirement in the call for nominations. >> >> *Scoring process* >> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >> >> >> The criteria were as follows: >> >> >> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. >> >> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >> >> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >> >> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >> conflicting interests. >> >> >> *Shortlist* >> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >> regional and gender balance. >> >> >> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet >> when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD >> will do this as quickly as possible. >> >> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >> >> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves >> that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be >> opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever >> processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. >> >> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >> >> >> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From omomeji at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 20:22:41 2013 From: omomeji at gmail.com (Abdul Jaleel Shittu) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:22:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: When some are making agitation to restructure the so called security council permanent sit arrangement and veto authority we are moving toward putting the future of internet to the bilateral agreement between China and US. What kind of future can we possibly envisage for in-coming generation, when the fate of internet is determine just two countries. I reason with Michael Gurstein's on multi-stakehoderism AJ On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks… > > > > You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement > negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the responsible > senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China > determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet (perhaps > you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out > "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the > "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or > less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards > "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc. > (amongst others) would have input… > > > > Strange world you guys live in… > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. > Hellmonds > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael gurstein' > Subject: AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can be much > more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired objectives and are > much easier to negotiate and implement than any kind of global agreement, > which usually would take a decade or two to negotiate and would be watered > down so much that the initiators would see nothing left of their original > intent. > > > > Peter > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Nick > Ashton-Hart > > > Gesendet: 12 March 2013 22:17 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds > Betreff: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater > - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist > > > > See below > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick > > > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > > > On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein wrote: > > What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they (together) > clearly indicate the need for some sort of global agreements concerning the > overall governance (development/deployment) of the Internet (including > issues of cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in > an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all… > > > > There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are > seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, China has > obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, yet, they block > ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect equivalent services > (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are homegrown. There are also > human rights agreements, again to which China is a party I understand, which > obligate it not to do many of the things it is doing to its citizens. > > > > There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow of > information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too. > > > > This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain states > from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just because a > country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement its provisions. > > !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- .................................................. Abdul Jaleel Kehinde Shittu (PhD) Senior Lecturer School of Computing College of Arts and Sciences University Utara Malaysia (Nothern University Malaysia) +6012-3052075 +6010-3814470 http://about.me/abduljaleelshittu. "It is one attitude, not one aptitude, that determines one altitude in life". "In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears. In the absence of a great dream, pettiness prevails." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 13 20:58:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Objections Filed by the Independent Objector Message-ID: Dear All, The Independent Objector has just published Objections against the new applied for gTLDs before the International Chamber of Commerce, see: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/news/ 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Mar 13 23:41:57 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:41:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Trade Office calls ACTA back from the Dead and Canada complies Message-ID: If Google's campaign for internet freedom at WCIT was not sheer propaganda, they should fight ACTA as well. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/us-trade-office-calls-acta-back-dead-and-canada-complies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 14 02:12:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:42:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 08:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi P > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> > > You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized > countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and > plurilateral agreements. Although I've never been clear whether the > fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India > for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great satan. Bill All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal gains bother me. Later in the email you speak of India-Bangladesh example... Of course there is the 'big brother' problem vis a vis India in the sub continent. When I was last in Bangaldesh I was shocked to see the local TV mostly full of Indian soap opera. To me the extent of domination of these programs appeared too culturally invasive. I later heard similar things about Sri Lanka. I would support any steps these countries would like to take to limit cultural imports from India to safe guard their respective cultures (btw, very penitently, now there is a UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which shows the value of multilaterlism in such situations). And I would resist if India seeks to use its market size and such allurements to browbeat these countries through FTA kind of agreements to act in ways that, what these countires otherwise feel, are really harmful to their national public interest... parminder > > > > While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems that are > truly global in scope, Internet is truly global in scope, and so must ne its governance.. > I don't think it's empirically supportable to claim that broad ML > processes are inherently more consistent with the procedural norms you > favor because there are more actors or some greater fealty to > principled behavior. Compare say the UN vs the Europe or the Americas > machinery. > >> It is also a basic democratic principle; more people/ actors are >> involved in decision making more the decisions serve all actors >> equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like the US and a >> developing country has strong elements of take it or leave it, and >> the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what if other >> similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements with the US. > > Same goes for bilaterals between say India and Bangledesh? > >> Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on commonness of >> interests of richer economies with certain structural >> characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit >> non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. >> >> >>> >>> To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of >>> being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because >>> those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to >>> arrive at given more complexly divided interests. >> >> Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just >> squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful. > > I think international human rights are important, yes > >>> The TA offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, >>> we might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) >> >> Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative >> references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that >> continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too >> dismissive about such stuff. > > I'm not dismissive of the WSIS, please don't start with the putting > words in other people's mouths thing yet again >> >>> More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, >>> it depends. >> >> They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles >> without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not >> good. >> >> Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global >> IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at >> IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for >> developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least if >> we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are >> certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. > > I have supported discussion of principles…. > > All this seems pretty far from the statements to which I was > responding, though... >> >> >>> >>> Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in >>> large-n collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact >>> clusters of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful >>> and/or motivated by sharply defined interests. Outsiders then get >>> pushed to conform with what these inner circle types have worked >>> out. The problem in trade has been that the identities and mixed >>> interest of the inner circles have diversified, and the outsiders >>> have found fewer reasons to budge. >> >> agree >>> >>> Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and >>> principles because they are "nested" agreements. >> >> I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are >> attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global >> level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms >> through small group and closed door agreements. > > Will we ever stop hearing SOPA discussed as if it were established > policy? It was proposed by some congress critters under pressure from > some lobbyists and was defeated. By others with "a Northern > perspective." The TPP I agree is problematic, but that's got a lot to > do with the fact that multilateralism in the WTO has broken down very > substantially. There's a big push here in Europe for a free trade > deal with the US on the same grounds. > >> >>> For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with the >>> WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of >>> practice) and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the >>> latter are absent presences in the former. It's like reading a >>> piece of legislation that modifies another piece of legislation that >>> is not fully incorporated into the text, you have read the docs back >>> and forth to get the full picture. >> >> Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not >> violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of >> a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO >> instruments. > > They can go beyond them in depth of liberalization affected through > the schedules of commitments, but they have to comport with the > fundamental principles of the trade system, e.g. MFN, national > treatment, etc. Of course, many trade mavens argue that while this is > nominally true, there are incentives there to cheat, and so each such > agreement gets looked at closely for exclusionary impact even if > there's a lack of declared intent. >>> >>>> >>>> Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil >>>> society has to make its considered value based choice whether it >>>> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones >>>> when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet >>>> governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of >>>> global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society for >>>> global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues >>>> ranging from trade and IP to climate. >>> >>> I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily >>> follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values >>> choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral >>> are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?). >> >> This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the >> opposite argument look bad. > > It's neither 'extreme' or trying to make your argument look bad. You > said CS has to make its considered value based choice whether it > prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones. So > you're saying one should prefer one to the other and its' a matter of > values. And I was simply saying I disagree in that having certain > values doesn't necessarily require such a choice, especially when > non-ML agreements may have a greater impact on values we care about in > some cases... > >> I am asking just that the same actors should note resist >> multilateralism who merrily go about doing plurilateralism exactly on >> the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). This is a values >> issue and an inferior choice from that standpoint. >> >> >>> In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on >>> the ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, >>> so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff >>> (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're >>> committing a grievous moral or strategic error. >> >> Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief, >> if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the >> above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the >> same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). > > But that's not extreme. > > Ok, well I was interested in understanding your original statement > >> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater >> chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are >> bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower >> interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, >> bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' >> results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something >> which follows from the preceding statement. > > And I think I've got it now. > > All the best, > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 14 02:21:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:51:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51416C57.3010302@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 March 2013 11:42 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 08:31 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi P >> >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> >> >> You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized >> countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and >> plurilateral agreements. Although I've never been clear whether the >> fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India >> for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great >> satan. > > Bill > > All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal > gains bother me. Later in the email you speak of India-Bangladesh > example... Of course there is the 'big brother' problem vis a vis > India in the sub continent. When I was last in Bangaldesh I was > shocked to see the local TV mostly full of Indian soap opera. To me > the extent of domination of these programs appeared too culturally > invasive. I later heard similar things about Sri Lanka. I would > support any steps these countries would like to take to limit cultural > imports from India to safe guard their respective cultures (btw, very > penitently, of course 'pertinently', and not 'penitently ' > now there is a UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of > the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which shows the value of > multilaterlism in such situations). And I would resist if India seeks > to use its market size and such allurements to browbeat these > countries through FTA kind of agreements to act in ways that, what > these countires otherwise feel, are really harmful to their national > public interest... > > parminder > > >> >> >> >> While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems that are >> truly global in scope, > > Internet is truly global in scope, and so must ne its governance.. > > >> I don't think it's empirically supportable to claim that broad ML >> processes are inherently more consistent with the procedural norms >> you favor because there are more actors or some greater fealty to >> principled behavior. Compare say the UN vs the Europe or the >> Americas machinery. >> >>> It is also a basic democratic principle; more people/ actors are >>> involved in decision making more the decisions serve all actors >>> equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like the US and a >>> developing country has strong elements of take it or leave it, and >>> the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what if other >>> similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements with the US. >> >> Same goes for bilaterals between say India and Bangledesh? >> >>> Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on commonness of >>> interests of richer economies with certain structural >>> characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit >>> non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of >>>> being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because >>>> those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to >>>> arrive at given more complexly divided interests. >>> >>> Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just >>> squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful. >> >> I think international human rights are important, yes >> >>>> The TA offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, >>>> we might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) >>> >>> Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative >>> references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that >>> continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too >>> dismissive about such stuff. >> >> I'm not dismissive of the WSIS, please don't start with the putting >> words in other people's mouths thing yet again >>> >>>> More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, >>>> it depends. >>> >>> They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles >>> without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not >>> good. >>> >>> Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global >>> IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at >>> IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for >>> developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least >>> if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are >>> certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. >> >> I have supported discussion of principles…. >> >> All this seems pretty far from the statements to which I was >> responding, though... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in >>>> large-n collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact >>>> clusters of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most >>>> powerful and/or motivated by sharply defined interests. Outsiders >>>> then get pushed to conform with what these inner circle types have >>>> worked out. The problem in trade has been that the identities and >>>> mixed interest of the inner circles have diversified, and the >>>> outsiders have found fewer reasons to budge. >>> >>> agree >>>> >>>> Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and >>>> principles because they are "nested" agreements. >>> >>> I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are >>> attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global >>> level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms >>> through small group and closed door agreements. >> >> Will we ever stop hearing SOPA discussed as if it were established >> policy? It was proposed by some congress critters under pressure >> from some lobbyists and was defeated. By others with "a Northern >> perspective." The TPP I agree is problematic, but that's got a lot to >> do with the fact that multilateralism in the WTO has broken down very >> substantially. There's a big push here in Europe for a free trade >> deal with the US on the same grounds. >> >>> >>>> For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with >>>> the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of >>>> practice) and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the >>>> latter are absent presences in the former. It's like reading a >>>> piece of legislation that modifies another piece of legislation >>>> that is not fully incorporated into the text, you have read the >>>> docs back and forth to get the full picture. >>> >>> Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not >>> violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of >>> a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO >>> instruments. >> >> They can go beyond them in depth of liberalization affected through >> the schedules of commitments, but they have to comport with the >> fundamental principles of the trade system, e.g. MFN, national >> treatment, etc. Of course, many trade mavens argue that while this is >> nominally true, there are incentives there to cheat, and so each such >> agreement gets looked at closely for exclusionary impact even if >> there's a lack of declared intent. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil >>>>> society has to make its considered value based choice whether it >>>>> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones >>>>> when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet >>>>> governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of >>>>> global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society >>>>> for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on >>>>> issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. >>>> >>>> I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily >>>> follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values >>>> choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral >>>> are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?). >>> >>> This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the >>> opposite argument look bad. >> >> It's neither 'extreme' or trying to make your argument look bad. You >> said CS has to make its considered value based choice whether it >> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones. So >> you're saying one should prefer one to the other and its' a matter of >> values. And I was simply saying I disagree in that having certain >> values doesn't necessarily require such a choice, especially when >> non-ML agreements may have a greater impact on values we care about >> in some cases... >> >>> I am asking just that the same actors should note resist >>> multilateralism who merrily go about doing plurilateralism exactly >>> on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). This is a >>> values issue and an inferior choice from that standpoint. >>> >>> >>>> In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on >>>> the ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, >>>> so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff >>>> (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're >>>> committing a grievous moral or strategic error. >>> >>> Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief, >>> if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the >>> above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the >>> same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). >> >> But that's not extreme. >> >> Ok, well I was interested in understanding your original statement >> >>> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater >>> chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are >>> bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower >>> interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost >>> always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative >>> power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, >>> something which follows from the preceding statement. >> >> And I think I've got it now. >> >> All the best, >> >> Bill >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Mar 14 04:42:28 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:42:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 March 2013 08:31 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi P >> >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and plurilateral agreements. Although I've never been clear whether the fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great satan. > > Bill > > All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal gains bother me. Fair enough, it's a principled stance, albeit one that would seem to require being permanently and pervasively bothered. But back to where we started, I recognize that you feel that universal multilateralism is inherently better than smaller-n collaborations, and for certain classes of problems I'd agree with you. I guess we would disagree on the other classes, and on whether that 'better' also includes by definition a greater propensity to the sort of overarching principles and norms you value and a lower propensity toward power games and relative gains. On these points I'd argue it's preferable to be guided by empirical analyses than by a priori assumptions, and that whether multilateralism or minilateralism is more functionally effective and politically palatable in a given case may depend on a variety of factors—issue area properties, linkages to other policy spaces, institutional capacity, etc. Sometimes big just works less well and smaller is more beautiful, and a lot of the effort that's gone into devising more diverse arrangements over the past 30 years or so—plurilateral/regional/transgovernmental/public-private/multistakeholder etc—cannot be explained simply as a drive to maximize power and exclude less powerful states, especially insofar as the latter are often participants. Nor is it necessarily the case that the expansion of architectural options comes in a hard binary way at the expense of multilateral institutions; their roles instead have been rearticulated in a more diverse topography, as per the WTO in a world of varying trade agreements. Anyway, I'm sure I can't persuade you, but I think it's fair to ask that you not just assume that anyone who expresses reservations about omnibus multilateral 'oversight' etc. must be doing so because they favor imperial power relations and domination etc. If you make absolute fealty to multilateralism an article of faith you're going to be bothered by a lot of colleagues a lot of the time and give short shrift to alternatives that merit due consideration… 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Mar 14 04:47:59 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:47:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette Congratulations on a well done process under difficult circumstances, although it's a pity you felt the need to exclude yourself from consideration…. Best, Bill On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > Enhanced Cooperation* > > *Background* > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > that know them and that have worked with them. > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > convenor of the group. > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > of the period that we had to do our work. > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > *Nominees* > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > first in case they have any objection to this. > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > requirement in the call for nominations. > > *Scoring process* > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > conflicting interests. > > > *Shortlist* > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > regional and gender balance. > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 06:12:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:12:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Message-ID: <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Anriette and I'm wondering when we can expect a similar exposition of procedures from the focal point for the Technical and Academic (T/A) stakeholder group? I'm also declaring an interest here in that I submitted my name for possible nomination through the T/A group. By explanation, while I have been active within the CS component of both the IGF and the WSIS processes, my "day job"/professional activities are within the area of Community Informatics (and previously Information Systems) and specifically I have been concerned as an academic and researcher/practitioner with extending the benefits of Internet access and use to the widest range of potential users -- in marginalized areas of Canada, among Indigenous Peoples and within LDC's. On that basis it was my feeling and those of my Community Informatics colleagues that my most appropriate designation in areas concerned with such matters as "Enhanced Cooperation" should be through my professional and academic knowledge and experience rather than through my normative positions as would be the case in seeking nomination through the Civil Society stakeholder group. I have thus submitted my name as above to the T/A group. However, I understand that I have not been recommended for this role by them, not because of a lack of qualification but rather because it was felt that I didn't fall within the defining "criteria" of the T/A group which initially was presented as - Gender and geographic balance - Familiarity with the WSIS process - Ability to travel (no funding available) - Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group - Representing the technical and academic communities Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having contributed to the building of the Internet". Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires"). At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation (where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have technically built the Internet". Subject of course to correction, my understanding is that there is no such formal available definition of the composition of the T/A stakeholder group. I fully recognize that the selection of the composition of the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation is at the complete discretion of the Chair, in consultation with others within the CSTD and associated UN officials (as I'm presuming also is the formal definition of the composition of the T/A stakeholder group). However, I would ask the CSTD Chair and others to recognize that in the current state of relative maturity of the Internet perhaps recognition should be given to the constituent element and contribution that end users contribute to "building the Internet"; the very great significance that the Internet has in the daily lives of all and the penalties imposed on those unable to access and use the Internet; and thus to give formal recognition to the participation of that element of the academic and research community concerned with building the Internet by and with end users and end uses as part of the T/A stakeholder group in matters so clearly impacting on the future provision of the Internet as a public good for all. Sincerely, M Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA Adjunct Professor: School of Library, Archival and Information Studies University of British Columbia Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics web: http://ci-journal.net Research Fellow: Institute of Advanced Systems Russian Academy of Sciences Honorary Fellow: Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovations University of Malaysia, Kuching Focal point: BRICS Research Collaborative on Digital Inclusion -- (Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa) Lead Consultant: Community Informatics and Policy Development: NEPAD/African Union tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update Dear all *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation* *Background* I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society that know them and that have worked with them. I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. The composition of the selection group was as follows: Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and convenor of the group. I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much of the period that we had to do our work. To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. *Nominees* To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them first in case they have any objection to this. *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' or supported by other individuals or organisations. To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a requirement in the call for nominations. *Scoring process* Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. The criteria were as follows: * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with conflicting interests. *Shortlist* Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to regional and gender balance. *Submission to CSTD Chair* After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. Anriette Esterhuysen -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 14 06:21:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:51:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5141A4BB.8030603@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 March 2013 02:12 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Bill >> >> All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal >> gains bother me. (Parminder) > > Fair enough, it's a principled stance, albeit one that would seem to > require being permanently and pervasively bothered.(Bill) :) Dear Bill, Living by principles can be a very happy life.... Yes, my organisation takes it as a starting point that there is structural injustice of very deep and inhuman kind in many if not most of the things around us, and we should try to address them in the small ways we can. And we constantly check our acts and positions against this - whether they are aimed at ameliorating these structural injustices. And I have met some of the happiest people I know in this line of work, so please do not essentialize. (P) > But back to where we started, I recognize that you feel that > universal multilateralism is inherently better than smaller-n > collaborations, and for certain classes of problems I'd agree with > you. (B) In my earlier email I have clearly stated what kind of uni/ pluri-lateralism I resist..... and I quote " The bilateral and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US, and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done considerable normative work.)" Is it not clear enough? I have not made exclusive multilateralism an article of faith as you allege below. Indeed I think that there should be closer trade ties and agreement among South Asian countries (and also in other regions). This discussion is in the clear context of the extant situation whereby OECD countries for instance do policy work on Internet issues in a manner that brings up de facto global rules, but oppose multilateral systems to deal with same issues in the same matter... Bill, why dont you just discuss this specific issue, rather than we go round and round on all possible typifications and peripheral categories - which discussion will always be endless. You recently joined the civil society advisory group of the OECD's Committee on Computer,Information and Communication Policy (CCICP) - which is OECD's Internet policy related organ. You must be aware that there is a clear desire to export OECD recently developed "Principles for Internet policy making' to non OECD countries. A great lot of work is being done in this committee that you are well aware of which is distinctly Internet policy related work...... Why then when we try to discuss a similar committee at a multilateral level you seem to come up with so many doubts about whether there at all are any Internet policy issues that are not already being taken up at other forums and need a special Internet policy related committee. OECD has more than 40 other committees, on trade, IP, practically every area of activity for which there is a UN/ muti-lateral body ...... Why dont you ever ask the same question to OECD's CCICP about the need for a specialised Internet policy related body. And even if you are not into question asking, why do you bother - and you have been rather insistent - to work with CCICP, when by your logic such a body should in fact not be required (the logic you use when we try to discuss a similar body at the multilateral level). Are these not obvious questions? And of course there is the question of multistakeholder participation. As you know UN CIRP proposed a stakeholder participation model which is distinctly more evolved, and better, that CCICP's. So, why anti multistakeholder allegations against UN CIRP and desire to work with CCICP. (Lets consider a UN CIRP minus the CIR oversight functions, for this discussion, which is also IT for Change's proposal. ) OK, even if you do not want to get into CIRP territory, and we are to stick to the plurilateral versus multilateral discussion; Since we can see that OECD's CICCP deals with Internet policy matters, and not only the Internet is essentially global, OECD members have a distinct desire to make outputs of CICCP (and CICCP plus processes) into *global* rules, and since there is no current multilateral body dealing with issues that CICCP deals with, do you agree that a similar body at the multilateral / UN level is a good idea, or is indeed very much needed. If you do not think so, what are your reasons. If we pursue these lines we may be more focussed on why uni/plurilateralism versus multi-lateralism is being discussed here, and our discussions may be more fruitful. parminder > I guess we would disagree on the other classes, and on whether that > 'better' also includes by definition a greater propensity to the sort > of overarching principles and norms you value and a lower propensity > toward power games and relative gains. On these points I'd argue it's > preferable to be guided by empirical analyses than by a priori > assumptions, and that whether multilateralism or minilateralism is > more functionally effective and politically palatable in a given case > may depend on a variety of factors—issue area properties, linkages to > other policy spaces, institutional capacity, etc. Sometimes big just > works less well and smaller is more beautiful, and a lot of the effort > that's gone into devising more diverse arrangements over the past 30 > years or > so—plurilateral/regional/transgovernmental/public-private/multistakeholder > etc—cannot be explained simply as a drive to maximize power and > exclude less powerful states, especially insofar as the latter are > often participants. Nor is it necessarily the case that the expansion > of architectural options comes in a hard binary way at the expense of > multilateral institutions; their roles instead have been rearticulated > in a more diverse topography, as per the WTO in a world of varying > trade agreements. Anyway, I'm sure I can't persuade you, but I think > it's fair to ask that you not just assume that anyone who expresses > reservations about omnibus multilateral 'oversight' etc. must be doing > so because they favor imperial power relations and domination etc. If > you make absolute fealty to multilateralism an article of faith you're > going to be bothered by a lot of colleagues a lot of the time and give > short shrift to alternatives that merit due consideration… > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Mar 14 06:42:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:42:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> On 14/03/13 18:12, michael gurstein wrote: > Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above > categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having > contributed to the building of the Internet". > > Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International > officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written > confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics > Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my > some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the > widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if > we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires"). > > At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation > (where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have > technically built the Internet". Oh, lordy lordy. This is too much. Doubtless there are many academics on this list, holding degrees other than computer science, who will be interested to learn that they are not qualified to be a member of what they might reasonably have supposed was their own stakeholder group. Thanks for bringing this to light, Michael. Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group. WGIG considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be. The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources and standards. Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see it providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a separate stakeholder group. I've been called out for being too critical of the technical community lately, but actually I /am/ a member of the technical community; former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's first (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, have been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies. So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being taken at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed representatives. -- *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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 03:00:22 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:00:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse To Start Accepting Registrations This Month Message-ID: <51417586.8050906@gmail.com> ye ol mission creep formalised... ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse To Start Accepting Registrations This Month Published on 13 March 2013 @ 8:55 pm Print This Post Print This Post Intellectual Property Watch By Kelly Burke for /Intellectual Property Watch / The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has announced that its Trademark Clearinghouse database, through which rights holders can submit their eligible trademarks prior to and during ICANN's launch of new domains, will start operating on 26 March. Any trademark holder, private person, or company can submit their trademark, according to the clearinghouse website . The registry is intended to make it easy for rights holders to track potentially infringing registrations. ICANN is the domain name system technical oversight body. The clearinghouse will accept trademarks that are nationally or regionally registered trademarks; protected by statue or treaty; validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding; or others that constitute intellectual property rights. Full clearinghouse guidelines can be found here [pdf]. The verified data in the Trademark Clearinghouse will be used to support both sunrise services and trademark claims, according to a clearinghouse FAQ page provided by ICANN. The 30-day sunrise service period allows users an "advance opportunity to register domain names corresponding to their marks before names are generally available to the public." After the sunrise period expires, the claims service will send an automatic notification to a trademark holder who has signed up if another user applies to register a domain name that directly matches the trademark. The Trademark Clearinghouse is part of ICANN's new generic top-level domain (gTLD) process implemented last year (/IPW/, Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting, 31 January 2012 ). The clearinghouse was intended to address trademark holders' concerns about the large expansion of new domains. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Mar 14 09:32:27 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:32:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist In-Reply-To: <5141A4BB.8030603@itforchange.net> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <091601ce1f3e$cf0ea540$6d2befc0$@gmail.com> <9127533430524225350@unknownmsgid> <001501ce1f6f$f9b39590$ed1ac0b0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <0bc301ce1f83$ac37fbd0$04a7f370$@gmail.com> <51400C62.4090600@itforchange.net> <22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch> <514077C5.4090308@itforchange.net> <79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch> <51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net> <5141A4BB.8030603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <613F6819-570A-4E6F-A854-8485C9C3C808@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder I was really just wanted to respond to this, >>> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement. which got my attention because what you said was well known seemed contrary to what a lot of international relations mavens think they know. But now you're bringing us back to your 'if OECD has a committee, why not the UN?' argument, which we've gone through various times previous. My position remains the same as it has been since 2004: I'd be happy for there to be meaningful, fully multistakeholder working groups operating under the aegis of the IGF capable of analyzing and debating global IG issues and laying out options and even recs where there's consensus. I'd be less enthused about a model that's intergovernmental with MS input and built as a new thing under DESA or appended to ITU, UNCTAD, etc. And I too have issues with the minilateral setting of global rules, where this occurs. I have nothing new to add to either point and am very bandwidth challenged at the moment, but I'm sure we'll have occasion for more cycles on this when the CSTD process gets underway… Best, Bill On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:21 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 14 March 2013 02:12 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Bill >>> >>> All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal gains bother me. (Parminder) >> >> Fair enough, it's a principled stance, albeit one that would seem to require being permanently and pervasively bothered.(Bill) > > :) Dear Bill, Living by principles can be a very happy life.... Yes, my organisation takes it as a starting point that there is structural injustice of very deep and inhuman kind in many if not most of the things around us, and we should try to address them in the small ways we can. And we constantly check our acts and positions against this - whether they are aimed at ameliorating these structural injustices. And I have met some of the happiest people I know in this line of work, so please do not essentialize. (P) > >> But back to where we started, I recognize that you feel that universal multilateralism is inherently better than smaller-n collaborations, and for certain classes of problems I'd agree with you. (B) > > In my earlier email I have clearly stated what kind of uni/ pluri-lateralism I resist..... and I quote " The bilateral and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US, and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done considerable normative work.)" > > Is it not clear enough? I have not made exclusive multilateralism an article of faith as you allege below. Indeed I think that there should be closer trade ties and agreement among South Asian countries (and also in other regions). This discussion is in the clear context of the extant situation whereby OECD countries for instance do policy work on Internet issues in a manner that brings up de facto global rules, but oppose multilateral systems to deal with same issues in the same matter... Bill, why dont you just discuss this specific issue, rather than we go round and round on all possible typifications and peripheral categories - which discussion will always be endless. > > You recently joined the civil society advisory group of the OECD's Committee on Computer,Information and Communication Policy (CCICP) - which is OECD's Internet policy related organ. You must be aware that there is a clear desire to export OECD recently developed "Principles for Internet policy making' to non OECD countries. A great lot of work is being done in this committee that you are well aware of which is distinctly Internet policy related work...... Why then when we try to discuss a similar committee at a multilateral level you seem to come up with so many doubts about whether there at all are any Internet policy issues that are not already being taken up at other forums and need a special Internet policy related committee. > > OECD has more than 40 other committees, on trade, IP, practically every area of activity for which there is a UN/ muti-lateral body ...... Why dont you ever ask the same question to OECD's CCICP about the need for a specialised Internet policy related body. And even if you are not into question asking, why do you bother - and you have been rather insistent - to work with CCICP, when by your logic such a body should in fact not be required (the logic you use when we try to discuss a similar body at the multilateral level). Are these not obvious questions? > > And of course there is the question of multistakeholder participation. As you know UN CIRP proposed a stakeholder participation model which is distinctly more evolved, and better, that CCICP's. So, why anti multistakeholder allegations against UN CIRP and desire to work with CCICP. (Lets consider a UN CIRP minus the CIR oversight functions, for this discussion, which is also IT for Change's proposal. ) > > OK, even if you do not want to get into CIRP territory, and we are to stick to the plurilateral versus multilateral discussion; > > Since we can see that OECD's CICCP deals with Internet policy matters, and not only the Internet is essentially global, OECD members have a distinct desire to make outputs of CICCP (and CICCP plus processes) into *global* rules, and since there is no current multilateral body dealing with issues that CICCP deals with, do you agree that a similar body at the multilateral / UN level is a good idea, or is indeed very much needed. If you do not think so, what are your reasons. > > If we pursue these lines we may be more focussed on why uni/plurilateralism versus multi-lateralism is being discussed here, and our discussions may be more fruitful. > > parminder > > > > > >> I guess we would disagree on the other classes, and on whether that 'better' also includes by definition a greater propensity to the sort of overarching principles and norms you value and a lower propensity toward power games and relative gains. On these points I'd argue it's preferable to be guided by empirical analyses than by a priori assumptions, and that whether multilateralism or minilateralism is more functionally effective and politically palatable in a given case may depend on a variety of factors—issue area properties, linkages to other policy spaces, institutional capacity, etc. Sometimes big just works less well and smaller is more beautiful, and a lot of the effort that's gone into devising more diverse arrangements over the past 30 years or so—plurilateral/regional/transgovernmental/public-private/multistakeholder etc—cannot be explained simply as a drive to maximize power and exclude less powerful states, especially insofar as the latter are often participants. Nor is it necessarily the case that the expansion of architectural options comes in a hard binary way at the expense of multilateral institutions; their roles instead have been rearticulated in a more diverse topography, as per the WTO in a world of varying trade agreements. Anyway, I'm sure I can't persuade you, but I think it's fair to ask that you not just assume that anyone who expresses reservations about omnibus multilateral 'oversight' etc. must be doing so because they favor imperial power relations and domination etc. If you make absolute fealty to multilateralism an article of faith you're going to be bothered by a lot of colleagues a lot of the time and give short shrift to alternatives that merit due consideration… >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Mar 14 09:54:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:54:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse To Start Accepting Registrations This Month In-Reply-To: <51417586.8050906@gmail.com> References: <51417586.8050906@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz - In my view, it would indeed represent very significant mission creep if it were a general purpose "Trademark Clearinghouse", as one might presume from its title. A more descriptive title for the database/service might be: "ICANN New gTLD Registration Process Trademark Registration Database" i.e. it's germane solely to ICANN's New gTLD registration process, and not any more general scope or purpose (at least as far as I can determine) (It does make one wonder why ICANN had to create this, and could not just automatically provide such notices based some existing trademark db, but that turns out to be a very difficult task; an excellent overview of some of the challenges can be found in this WIPO IP Authorities Symposium presentation - http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_aut_ge_11/wipo_ip_aut_ge_11_t.ppt) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. All marks reserved. ;-) On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:00 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > ye ol mission creep formalised... > > ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse To Start Accepting Registrations This Month > > Published on 13 March 2013 @ 8:55 pm > Print This Post > > Intellectual Property Watch > > By Kelly Burke for Intellectual Property Watch > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has announced that its Trademark Clearinghouse database, through which rights holders can submit their eligible trademarks prior to and during ICANN’s launch of new domains, will start operating on 26 March. > > Any trademark holder, private person, or company can submit their trademark, according to the clearinghouse website. The registry is intended to make it easy for rights holders to track potentially infringing registrations. ICANN is the domain name system technical oversight body. > > The clearinghouse will accept trademarks that are nationally or regionally registered trademarks; protected by statue or treaty; validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding; or others that constitute intellectual property rights. Full clearinghouse guidelines can be found here [pdf]. > > The verified data in the Trademark Clearinghouse will be used to support both sunrise services and trademark claims, according to a clearinghouse FAQ page provided by ICANN. The 30-day sunrise service period allows users an “advance opportunity to register domain names corresponding to their marks before names are generally available to the public.” After the sunrise period expires, the claims service will send an automatic notification to a trademark holder who has signed up if another user applies to register a domain name that directly matches the trademark. > > The Trademark Clearinghouse is part of ICANN’s new generic top-level domain (gTLD) process implemented last year (IPW, Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting, 31 January 2012). The clearinghouse was intended to address trademark holders’ concerns about the large expansion of new domains. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 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 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Thu Mar 14 10:11:18 2013 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:11:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Public Citizen's comment opposing NABP's .pharmacy application Message-ID: All: I thought many of you may be interested in this application that Public Citizen filed in opposing the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's (NABP) application of the .pharmacy TLD. Public Citizen is concerned that the registration would allow the NABP to exclude licensed pharmacies located in Canada from acquiring domain names under .pharmacy. This would prevent access to affordable medicines for many in the US. A link to Public Citizen's comments is here: https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145 Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 jaryn56 at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 12:01:25 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:01:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Process for addressing global policy issues (was Re: China's next-generation internet...) In-Reply-To: <20130313134325.58169b4c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <943201530.71217.1363099899403.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <656428575.72310.1363101354673.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> <51401FC1.30901@itforchange.net> <20130313134325.58169b4c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Se debe incorporar a América Latina y el Caribe a IGF, solamente veo en el Caucus a personas de Asia Y Europa. Dime tu parecer... *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/13 Norbert Bollow > Parminder wrote: > > > Instead, lets recognise people's and countries' democratic > > aspirations and real governance needs, and come with good faith to > > the global IG table. Lets start with trying to agree on some highest > > principles for the global governance of the Internet in public > > interest, and also get down to trying to work out agreements on areas > > like net neutrality, freedom of expression and association, > > regulation of global Internet business, tax on global e-commerce, > > security, spam, IPv6 implementation and so on. If we refuse to float > > together we will sink separately; I mean all others than the most > > powerful 1 percent (although I think the number is closer to 8-15 > > percent, I will go with the currently in vogue percentage. :) ) > > So what are the options for processes that can reasonably be expected > to lead to these global policy issues getting address in a good way? > > I have already mentioned my "Wisdom task Force" [1] proposal a while > back (I've uploaded a revised version earlier today). > [1] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Mar 14 14:56:55 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:56:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] LAC in IGC and IGF (was:Process for addressing global policy issues) Message-ID: Hola, José Félix Arias Ynche, Tanto en el IGC (Internet Governanc Caucus) como en el IGF (Internet Governance Forum) hay bastante gente involucrada de LAC, Africa y el Pacífico. No dudo que seamos minoría, pero tenemos gente calificada y trabajadora, con logros impresionantes. Puedes revisar la lista de miembros en http://igcaucus.org/list-members para encontrar nombres bien conocidos del LAC. Sigamos trabajando y mejorando, pero sin dejar de apreciar el trabajo de gente de Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay y muchos mas paises (incluyendo al Perú--pregúntale a Erick, Katitza o Francisco), que vienen haciendo desde hace muchos años. Saludos, Ginger From translate.google.com: Hello, José Félix Arias Ynche, In both the IGC (Internet Governanc Caucus) and IGF (Internet Governance Forum) there are enough [many] people involved in LAC, Africa and the Pacific. No doubt we are the minority, but we have qualified and hardworking people, with impressive accomplishments. You can review the list of members in http://igcaucus.org/list-members to find well-known names of the LAC. Let's keep working and improving, but still appreciate the work of people from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and many other countries (including Peru - ask Erick, Katitza or Francisco), they have been doing for many years. regards, Ginger* * Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 14 March 2013 11:01, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > Se debe incorporar a América Latina y el Caribe a IGF, solamente veo en el > Caucus a personas de Asia Y Europa. > > Dime tu parecer... > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/3/13 Norbert Bollow > >> Parminder wrote: >> >> > Instead, lets recognise people's and countries' democratic >> > aspirations and real governance needs, and come with good faith to >> > the global IG table. Lets start with trying to agree on some highest >> > principles for the global governance of the Internet in public >> > interest, and also get down to trying to work out agreements on areas >> > like net neutrality, freedom of expression and association, >> > regulation of global Internet business, tax on global e-commerce, >> > security, spam, IPv6 implementation and so on. If we refuse to float >> > together we will sink separately; I mean all others than the most >> > powerful 1 percent (although I think the number is closer to 8-15 >> > percent, I will go with the currently in vogue percentage. :) ) >> >> So what are the options for processes that can reasonably be expected >> to lead to these global policy issues getting address in a good way? >> >> I have already mentioned my "Wisdom task Force" [1] proposal a while >> back (I've uploaded a revised version earlier today). >> [1] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1 >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 14 15:00:31 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:00:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse To Start Accepting Registrations This Month In-Reply-To: References: <51417586.8050906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51421E4F.1070807@gmail.com> Agreed. I am being historical in my sarcasm... because of the initial conflation of a domain name with intellectual property. Now it does need to be managed to avoid the preventable litigation... Thanks for the link Riaz -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Mar 14 16:51:44 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:51:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] International Journal of Knowledge and Learning (IJKL): Special Issue on Knowledge Acquisition Reuse and Evaluation Message-ID: <00ac01ce20f5$bd4057b0$37c10710$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this Call For Paper] **************************************************************************** ***************** SPECIAL ISSUE Knowledge Acquisition Reuse and Evaluation International Journal of Knowledge and Learning (IJKL) http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/cfp.php?id=2169 **************************************************************************** ***************** *Call for Papers The advent of the age of digital information has brought the problem of Knowledge Acquisition, Reuse and Evaluation. This is today a dynamic research area constantly subject to adapt to new application requirements. Reuse and sharing of knowledge bases are major issues and no satisfactory solutions have been agreed upon yet as knowledge acquisition still remains the bottleneck for building a knowledge based system. Our ability to analyze, evaluate and assist user in reusing knowledge present a great challenge of the next years. A new generation of computational techniques and tools is required to support the acquisition, the reuse and the evaluation of useful knowledge from the rapidly growing volume of information. This call is aimed at collecting both theoretical and experimental results concerned with developing methods and systems that assist the knowledge management process and assessing the suitability of such methods. *Topics A non-exhaustive list of topics for the workshop includes the following: - Tools and techniques for knowledge acquisition, knowledge update and knowledge validation - Semantic web inference methodologies - Semantic knowledge portals - Web-based approaches for knowledge management - Agent-based approaches for knowledge management - Software agents for semantic web - Semantic web-based knowledge management - Tools, languages, and techniques for semantic annotation - Semantic searching - Semantic brokering - CSCW and cooperative approaches for knowledge management - Agent-based approaches for knowledge management - Evaluation of knowledge acquisition techniques - Information and knowledge structures - Languages and frameworks for knowledge and knowledge modeling - Ontology creation, evolution, reconciliation, and mediation - Ontology-based approaches for knowledge management - Knowledge delivery methods - Knowledge life cycle - Knowledge and information extraction and discovery techniques - Corporate Semantic Webs for knowledge management - Peer-to-peer approaches for knowledge management - Knowledge extraction from images/pictures - Intelligent knowledge-based systems - Decision support and expert systems - Re-usability of software/knowledge/information - Agent-based approaches for knowledge management - Evaluation of knowledge acquisition techniques - Information and knowledge structures - Languages and frameworks for knowledge and knowledge modeling - Ontology creation, evolution, reconciliation, and mediation - Ontology-based approaches for knowledge management - Knowledge delivery methods - Knowledge life cycle - Knowledge and information extraction and discovery techniques - Knowledge extraction from images/pictures - Intelligent knowledge-based systems - Decision support and expert systems *Important Dates - Abstract: 10-05-2013 - Submission: 30-05-2013 - Notification: 30-07-2013 - Final Version: 15-09-2013 *Guest Editors - Davy Monticolo, University of Lorraine (France) davy.monticolo at ensgsi.inpl-nancy.fr - Paolo Ceravolo, Universita' degli Studi di Milano (Italy) paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it *Notes for Prospective Authors Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere All papers are refereed through a peer review process. A guide for authors, sample copies and other relevant information for submitting papers are available on the Author Guidelines page. *Editors and Notes All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please go to Online Submissions of Papers. If you experience any problems submitting your paper online, please contact submissions at inderscience.com, describing the exact problem you experience. (Please include in your email the title of the Special Issue, the title of the Journal and the name of the Guest Editor). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Mar 14 17:45:22 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:45:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] IEEE DEST-CEE 2013, Menlo Park (July 24-26): Extended Paper Submission: April 15, 2013 Message-ID: <017701ce20fd$3b35cf40$b1a16dc0$@unimi.it> Sincere apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP IEEE DEST 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies Special Theme - Complex Environment Engineering 24-26 July 2013 – Menlo Park, California, USA Call for Papers About IEEE DEST 2013: What are Digital Ecosystems? Digital Ecosystems inherit concepts of open, loosely coupled, demand-driven, domain clustered, agent-based self-organized collaborative environments where species/agents form a temporary coalition (or longer term) for a specific purpose or goals. Within this environment everyone is proactive and responsive for their own benefit or profit. The essence of digital ecosystems is the adoption of ecological system concepts, and creating value by making connections through collective intelligence and promoting collaboration instead of unbridled competition and ICT-based catalyst effects in a number of domains, to produce networked enriched communities and solutions. What are Digital Ecosystem Technologies? In the present Digital Age, strong development of digital network infrastructure has dominated our service delivery, economic growth and life style. Future applications in domains such as Health-Science, Energy, Social Networks and Logistics demand infrastructures that are more agile than those operated currently. Digital Ecosystems aim to capture the notion of such agile and adaptive infrastructures. Digital Ecosystem Technologies encompass the advent of the whole spectrum of Internet technologies, starting from the hyperlinked web towards pervasive internet applications, from Peer-to-Peer systems to Grid middleware, followed by Cloud Services, Agent technologies, Sensor Networks and Cyber Physical Systems, which has become a major theme for business process digitalization. Complex Environment Engineering - Special Theme for IEEE-DEST 2013 Today's global challenges such as in Energy and Sustainability, Healthcare and an Aging Society, Public Safety and Security, or Democracy and Participation/Involvement confront us with the most Complex Environments. Traditional ICT-support has often increased complexity, thus making the challenges even more severe. The Digital Ecosystem perspective aims to address the two-fold challenge of Complex Environment Engineering and Digital Ecosystem Technology mapping. The complexity of both the challenges and the technological solutions has to be acknowledged. IEEE DEST 2013 with its special theme of - Complex Environment Engineering recognizes the key role of business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis for Digital Ecosystems, and vice versa. In 2013, the distinguished SEED Inauguration Workshop "Building a Digital Ecosystem for Societal Empowerment" will take place in cooperation with IEEE DEST 2013. Further, the Innovation Adoption Forum underpins the importance of public-private partnership as the key for delivering sustainable solutions for our Complex Living and Business Environment – and thus our Digital Ecosystem Habitat. Our Keynotes, Panels and Sessions will tackle the multifaceted challenges and solutions from various stakeholders’ perspectives. Important Dates: Submission of Tutorial: Dec 15, 2012 Notification of Acceptance of Tutorial/Workshop/Special Session: Jan 15, 2013 Paper Submission: April 15, 2013 Author Notification: May 6, 2013 Camera Ready Version: May 20, 2013 Contact Information: Conference Secretary & Treasurer Gaurangi Potdar Dest2013 at digital-ecology.org Gaurangi at digital-ecology.org Webmaster & Graphic Designer Samin Mirgheshmi Samin at digital-ecology.org Paper Submission: Papers should be original works and up to 6 pages in length. All submitted papers will be peer reviewed by at least 3 independent reviewers. Papers submitted for this conference must be formatted to fit on A4 paper in a two column format. The author should use a word processor or desktop publishing system to produce a "camera ready'' paper on A4 paper. All manuscripts submitted for this conference must be in IEEE Xplore-compatible PDF format. To assist authors in meeting this requirement , IEEE has established a web based service called PDF Xpress. We strongly suggest that you use this service. Complete information on the papers submission system for IEEE DEST 2013 will be made available shortly on http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/index.php/paper-submission Conference Location and Context: The IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will be hosted in Menlo Park, California. Situated in the heart of the Silicon Valley, it´s right in the epicenter of the Digital Ecosystem revolution. The research and innovation ecosystem here is legendary, fuelled by the unique spirit and entrepreneurship of The Valley and The Bay Area. Bridging the Bay, UC Berkeley and Stanford University are world renown for their global impact in science and technology, trends setting in society and ecology/sustainability, and economic development. Companies such as IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook linked-in and numerous other technology drivers are in direct proximity. From San Jose to Woodside to Berkeley, the spirit is “in the air” – today as much as in the past decades. IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will take place in the heart of the Silicon Valley, at stunning conference locations in Menlo Park and at Stanford University. People around the globe enjoy the Californian Way of Life, blending it´s vibrant socio-technological momentum with the tranquillity of the Pacific, it´s redwood forests, and San Francisco and Berkeley as the spirited places for those who still see it as the counter-culture centre of the Sixties. Free Speech and “Flower Power” are forever in Berkeley´s and San Francisco´s “DNA,” as much as Venture Capital Companies and technology leaders team up in The Valley. IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 taps and gets involved into this ecosystem. We look forward to your involvement! SEED Inauguration Workshop Building a Digital Ecosystem for Societal Empowerment Pre-conference symposium: July 23, and then with IEEE DEST 2013 Conference Tracks: AREA I: FOUNDATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES Area I deals with the basic ICT foundations of digital ecosystems, including large-scale, virtualized infrastructures, hosting ecosystem services and processes. Ecosystems require a novel approach to ICT technology development, closely related to the engineering of complex systems. Area I includes two one-day tracks that feature contributions on how the technological support for digital ecosystems is emerging. Track A: Foundations of Digital Ecosystems & Complex Environment Engineering Track B: Convergence of Technologies for Sustainable Infrastructures AREA II: SUSTAINABLE DOMAIN SOLUTIONS Area II presents contributions in various application domains, Just as the development of Smart Grids required the convergence of energy and information system infrastructures, radically new approaches to the design, convergence, and adoption of systems are required for future solutions in a variety of domains. Radically increasing the involvement of stakeholders with complex environments is one potential route for providing solutions in these domains, for example in energy systems or healthcare. In the longer term, approaches for enabling collaborative ecosystems may lead to high-impact solutions for today´s most pressing challenges. The “Sustainable Domain Solutions” tracks will identify domain requirements, research challenges and systems solutions with respect to the concept of Digital Ecosystems and Complex Environment Engineering, as outlined in the background and objectives of IEEE DEST 2013. Within this context, the tracks will focus on, but not be limited to, the issues like - Scalability and availability, with respect to large infrastructure platforms; evolvability, with respect to the introduction and life-cycle of service platforms; and usability, with respect to human factors and user benefits. Track C: Digital Humanities Track D: Cyber-Security Ecosystem Track E: Hybrid Biological-Digital Systems Track F: Healthcare and Sustainable Living Track G: Track I: Platforms for Social and Community Involvement / Engagement Track H: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems Track I: Collaborative Platforms for Sustainable Logistics and Transportation Track J: Fuzzy Semantic computing in digital ecosystems Track K: Big Data Ecosystems -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 01:55:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:25:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Dear All, I think this is a serious matter. Let me argue why. This group, and perhaps much of IG civil society, has been rather focussed on multistakeholderism as a new participatory form of democracy (hopefully!). Now, it is easy to say that civil society, business and technical comunity should be at the policy making table or at least involved substantially. But the immediate question then is; who among these groups should be allowed in? Representivity therefore is the most key issue that participatory democracy and multistakeholderism (MSism) must constantly deal with. Since it is the contention of this movement that elections *do not exhaust" public representation, and that they need to be complemented by other forms, it must show how it adds to public representativity and, rather, does not take away from it. This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and*/I invite the numerous theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage/* with the episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, not even everyone who turns up. I think ISOC, or a specific office holder of ISOC, as the designated focal point for technical community owes it to the public to describe the complete process that was followed, including the definitions of 'technical and academic community', specifically the 'academic' part, that were employed. Multistakeholderism can succeed only within a clear normative framework (and my biggest problem with MSism as often practised is its normlessness). We must lay down principles of inclusion and exclusion, of selection of representatives for committees / WGs etc. BTW, IT for Change, and also Indian government, in their submissions to the working group has proposed some clear normative guidelines for selection of MS representatives (for the MAG). Some of them are in the final report, along with other good suggestions. I quote below the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. (quote begins) 20/. The proposed Selection Process for the MAG:/ (a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose lists of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical distribution. This will enable a wide range of diversity within the MAG, especially those groups which have been underrepresented in the MAG, and be sufficiently large to provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members. (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process that works best for their own culture and methods of engagement and which will ensure their self-management. (c) The contribution of lists of proposed candidates for each stakeholder group should not be restricted to one particular body. (d)The final selection of candidates shall continue to be made by the UN Secretary-General. 21. /During the Selection Process the following measures should be kept in mind:/ (a) The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. (quote ends) Since the above is a CSTD WG rec, although specifically for MAG selection, it is obvious that these principles should be followed for other comparable forums and processes, and the present one is certainly so. So, lets have the full documentation and publication of the selection process. We will also like to know if the full documentation of process was forwarded to the CSTD chair along with recommended names. Since, in my view, this is a fundamental issue to and of MSism , I propose that IGC takes a clear position on this. If needed we should follow up with letters to where ever we need to send them. parminder On Thursday 14 March 2013 04:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/03/13 18:12, michael gurstein wrote: >> Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above >> categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having >> contributed to the building of the Internet". >> >> Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International >> officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written >> confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics >> Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my >> some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the >> widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if >> we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires"). >> >> At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation >> (where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have >> technically built the Internet". > > Oh, lordy lordy. This is too much. Doubtless there are many > academics on this list, holding degrees other than computer science, > who will be interested to learn that they are not qualified to be a > member of what they might reasonably have supposed was their own > stakeholder group. Thanks for bringing this to light, Michael. > > Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical > and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group. WGIG > considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be. > The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case > that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups. > > Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate > stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical > (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources > and standards. Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see it > providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a separate > stakeholder group. > > I've been called out for being too critical of the technical community > lately, but actually I /am/ a member of the technical community; > former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's first > (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, have > been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies. > > So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just > calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, > Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being taken > at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed > representatives. > > -- > > *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 nashton at ccianet.org Fri Mar 15 02:46:36 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:46:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> Message-ID: inline responses On 14 Mar 2013, at 11:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group. WGIG considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be. The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups. That is your opinion, but not one that many would recognise as a fact. > Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources and standards. Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see it providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a separate stakeholder group. Again, your opinion. I amongst others strongly disagree. > I've been called out for being too critical of the technical community lately, but actually I am a member of the technical community; former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's first (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, have been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies. Jeremy, I can also claim to be technical - I've had a technical career in IT that went from Sysadmin to hired gun CIO; I've designed IP networks including multi-country networks and programmed routers. Neither of us is a member of the technical community. You work for consumer interests and I work in policy for a trade association. Members of the technical community work for technical bodies. > > So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being taken at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed representatives. I leave it to the community concerned to deal with this issue and the questions arising from it, but I personally am unwilling to decide judgment based upon one email from an interested party in the issue - and simple fairness, I would have thought, should mean that nobody else should do that either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 04:16:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:46:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5142D8CD.9030409@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 March 2013 12:16 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > inline responses > > On 14 Mar 2013, at 11:42, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical >> and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group. WGIG >> considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be. >> The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case >> that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups. > > That is your opinion, but not one that many would recognise as a fact. No, it is a fact. WSIS output documents recognise three stakeholder groups and two kinds of international organisations - inter gov and technical standards making. "Technical and academic community" is recognised as a cross cutting across the three stakeholder groups, and clearly not a separate stakeholder group. Relevant parts of Tunis Agenda is quoted below, whereby it is absolutely clear what is what. (Bold highlights added) (begins) 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: 1. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. 2. The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. 3. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. 4. Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. 5. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. 36. We recognizethe valuable contribution by the *academic and technical communities within those stakeholder group**s* mentioned in paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet. (ends) ' It is clear that members of what is recognised as 'academic and technical community' can be working with governments, private sector or civil society (or indeed for international organisations) However, their identity for the present purpose is independent of that. Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical' community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely wrong to limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is also wrong to limit this category to technical people alone or to technical academics and exclude other academics connected to Internet matters. It seems that the focal point for nominations for this community has committed either both or at least the latter of these two errors. The CSTD process has separate focal points for 'Inter gov and International bodies' (this phrase must be read in keeping with above quote from TA) and for 'technical and academic communities'. If ICANN wants to send a rep they should approach the 'inter gov and international bodies' focal point. If ISOC considers itself an international technical standards body on behalf of IETF, IAB etc, it should also approach this particular focal point. However, if it is mediating on behalf of the wider technical and academic community it needs to consider technical and academic people from anywhere and everywhere as long as relevance of their expertise to IG matters is established. > >> Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate >> stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical >> (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources >> and standards. Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see >> it providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a >> separate stakeholder group. > > Again, your opinion. I amongst others strongly disagree. No, not Jeremy's opinion. This is as per WSIS outcome documents as above. > >> I've been called out for being too critical of the technical >> community lately, but actually I/am/a member of the technical >> community; former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's >> first (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, >> have been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT >> consultancies. > > Jeremy, I can also claim to be technical - I've had a technical career > in IT that went from Sysadmin to hired gun CIO; I've designed IP > networks including multi-country networks and programmed routers. > > Neither of us is a member of the technical community. You work for > consumer interests and I work in policy for a trade association. > Members of the technical community work for technical bodies. Wrong again. TA is clear, technical and academic community members can be working in governments, private sector, civil society, anywhere...... parminder >> >> So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just >> calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, >> Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being >> taken at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed >> representatives. > > I leave it to the community concerned to deal with this issue and the > questions arising from it, but I personally am unwilling to decide > judgment based upon one email from an interested party in the issue - > and simple fairness, I would have thought, should mean that nobody > else should do that either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Mar 15 04:30:40 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:30:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5142D8CD.9030409@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142D8CD.9030409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5142DC30.1050207@ciroap.org> On 15/03/13 16:16, parminder wrote: > Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical' > community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and > academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely > wrong to limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is also > wrong to limit this category to technical people alone or to technical > academics and exclude other academics connected to Internet matters. > It seems that the focal point for nominations for this community has > committed either both or at least the latter of these two errors. So, what to do? I don't think it would be out of place for the IGC to write a letter to ISOC and/or to the Chair of the CSTD Working Group pointing out the error. Civil society has a valid role as watchdog to play here, and furthermore constitutes a large part of the cross-cutting constituency that ISOC is supposed to be representing. I would be happy to help draft a letter, if there was any chance that the Caucus could reach a rough consensus to send it (which I'm unsure of). -- *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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 04:59:52 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:59:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5142DC30.1050207@ciroap.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142D8CD.9030409@itforchange.net> <5142DC30.1050207@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 15/03/13 16:16, parminder wrote: > > Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical' > community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and > academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely wrong to > limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is also wrong to limit > this category to technical people alone or to technical academics and > exclude other academics connected to Internet matters. It seems that the > focal point for nominations for this community has committed either both or > at least the latter of these two errors. > > > So, what to do? I don't think it would be out of place for the IGC to > write a letter to ISOC and/or to the Chair of the CSTD Working Group > pointing out the error. Civil society has a valid role as watchdog to play > here, and furthermore constitutes a large part of the cross-cutting > constituency that ISOC is supposed to be representing. I would be happy to > help draft a letter, if there was any chance that the Caucus could reach a > rough consensus to send it (which I'm unsure of). > > [ST>] Please go ahead and draft a letter and we can always put it to the community to solicit their input and comments. > > -- > > *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 > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 15 05:59:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:59:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142D8CD.9030409@itforchange.net> <5142DC30.1050207@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130315105946.202f50a3@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > > On 15/03/13 16:16, parminder wrote: > > > > Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical' > > community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and > > academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely > > wrong to limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is > > also wrong to limit this category to technical people alone or to > > technical academics and exclude other academics connected to > > Internet matters. It seems that the focal point for nominations for > > this community has committed either both or at least the latter of > > these two errors. > > > > > > So, what to do? I don't think it would be out of place for the IGC > > to write a letter to ISOC and/or to the Chair of the CSTD Working > > Group pointing out the error. Civil society has a valid role as > > watchdog to play here, and furthermore constitutes a large part of > > the cross-cutting constituency that ISOC is supposed to be > > representing. I would be happy to help draft a letter, if there > > was any chance that the Caucus could reach a rough consensus to > > send it (which I'm unsure of). > > Please go ahead and draft a letter and we can always put it to the > community to solicit their input and comments. There's different possible paths of action here. One is indeed to write a letter in the "watchdog" role just like it would also be appropriate to write a letter on any other serious misconduct in any other area of public policy making. Another possible path of action is to do a more in-depth statement reviewing all the selection processes that have been used for the non-government invitees, and communicate that as appropriate, which IMO means to disseminate it very widely. I tend to think that maybe we should do both, with the watchdog type letter being the urgent action that needs to be taken immediately. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 15 06:26:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:26:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > I quote below > the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on > Improvements to the IGF. > > (quote begins) [..] > (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the > process that works best for their own culture and methods of > engagement and which will ensure their self-management. [..] > (quote ends) Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in this area. Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG) almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process. I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 06:46:24 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 03:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Quoting Norbert:  > Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in this area. Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG) almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process. I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. > In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working Methods" caucus/group. That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time.  But for those who are interested in process.. This may  be a good time to do this again. Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update Parminder wrote: > I quote below > the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on > Improvements to the IGF. > > (quote begins) [..] >        (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the > process that works best for their own culture and methods of ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Mar 15 06:52:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:52:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> I know, but experience and expertise are pretty valuable in these situations… On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Bill, I think she is in another CSTD WG? > > --c.a. > > On 03/14/2013 05:47 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Anriette >> >> Congratulations on a well done process under difficult circumstances, although it's a pity you felt the need to exclude yourself from consideration…. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>> >>> *Background* >>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>> >>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>> >>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>> >>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>> >>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >>> convenor of the group. >>> >>> >>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>> >>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >>> >>> *Nominees* >>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>> >>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>> >>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>> >>> *Scoring process* >>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>> >>> >>> The criteria were as follows: >>> >>> >>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. >>> >>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>> >>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>> >>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>> conflicting interests. >>> >>> >>> *Shortlist* >>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>> regional and gender balance. >>> >>> >>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>> >>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>> >>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. >>> >>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>> >>> >>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>> >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Mar 15 06:55:12 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:55:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Future of Multilateralism in the Governance and Regulation of Communications Message-ID: A journal for which Milton and I serve on the editorial board wants to do a special issue on multilateralism and governance in the post-WCIT environment. Call for papers is here http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=4592 Sorry for cross posting but I think there could be interest on this list… Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland www.williamdrake.org Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 07:10:44 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:10:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a time given. Baudouin 2013/3/15, Nnenna : > Quoting Norbert: > > > > Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in > this area. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint > board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which > would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would > avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to > have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG) > almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process. > > I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think > about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. >> > > > > In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working Methods" > caucus/group. > > That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time. But for those who are > interested in process.. > > This may be a good time to do this again. > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > ________________________________ > From: Norbert Bollow > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > Parminder wrote: > >> I quote below >> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on >> Improvements to the IGF. >> >> (quote begins) > [..] >> (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the >> process that works best for their own culture and methods of > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 15 07:29:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:29:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130315122910.382de64e@quill.bollow.ch> Baudouin Schombe wrote: > I think Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should > not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a > time given. Is there some written documentation of the work of that "Working Methods" caucus/group? Greetings, Norbert > 2013/3/15, Nnenna : > > Quoting Norbert: > > > > > > > Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in > > this area. > > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of > > joint board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations > > which would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that > > would avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom > > process only to have the result partly or (as happened in the case > > of the CSTD WG) almost totally ignored at the next step of the > > selection process. > > > > I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think > > about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. > >> > > > > > > > > In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working > > Methods" caucus/group. > > > > That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time. But for those who are > > interested in process.. > > > > This may be a good time to do this again. > > > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for > > Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 > > |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > > http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 > > | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Norbert Bollow > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > > > Parminder wrote: > > > >> I quote below > >> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on > >> Improvements to the IGF. > >> > >> (quote begins) > > [..] > >> (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the > >> process that works best for their own culture and methods of > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Mar 15 07:33:50 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:33:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5143071E.8060408@apc.org> Hi all.. I am completelyswamped with work.. so this is quick. 1) I am not against the idea of setting up a 'joint mechanism' of some kind for CS to do selections, but at the same time I think we would not being too bureaucratic. 2) As for other non-governmental groups and how they identify their representatives, I would suggest we ask for transparency and leave it at that. We know that our own processes are imperfect and I don't think that finger pointing at any other group will help. Not to mention that there is a lot of room for improvement in how governments select their representatives. And they are SUCH AN IMPORTANT stakeholder group. If we are going to start reviewingselection processes why only look at non-gov stakeholders. 3) I personally believe that the technical community is an important stakeholder group in IG that does deserve recognition and representation. I would agree that no one body should dominate how representation is identified, but that also applies to CS and Business and it is indeed something thatIGC should support. 4) My concern (and I wrote about this at length during the early stages of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements) is that CS had to share our slots with the academic community. I know this is controversial, and in Paris some academic CSparticipants challenged me on my position. I respect that some of the most active and dynamic individuals in the IG CS space are academics, but: - CS is so diversethat we should be having as manyslots as possible for CS organisations to widen representationand ideas - The non-technical academic input into IG is similarly so vital (particularly in thinking of social impacts of the internet in the future) that it should be recognised as a stakeholder group in its own right. My view has always been therefore, even if it takes a General Assembly resolution, that either (a) CS are given more slots than other non-governmental stakeholder groups in recognition of the fact that we include non-tech academics or (b) that the non-tech academic community be recognised as an important stakeholder group in its own right. Anriette On 15/03/2013 13:10, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > I think Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should > not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a > time given. > > Baudouin > > 2013/3/15, Nnenna : >> Quoting Norbert: >> >> > >> Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in >> this area. >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint >> board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which >> would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would >> avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to >> have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG) >> almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process. >> >> I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think >> about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. >> >> >> In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working Methods" >> caucus/group. >> >> That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time. But for those who are >> interested in process.. >> >> This may be a good time to do this again. >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants >> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development >> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org >> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Norbert Bollow >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> I quote below >>> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on >>> Improvements to the IGF. >>> >>> (quote begins) >> [..] >>> (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the >>> process that works best for their own culture and methods of >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Mar 15 07:45:55 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:45:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> Thanks for the confidence, Bill. c.a. I served (along with Izumi, Parminder, Wolfgang and Marilia) on the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements. It was hard work but we managed to come up with a relative good report. It could have been more hard hitting, but as a consensus document emerging from a process in which stakeholders started from vastly different perspectives, it is not bad. Getting these recommendations implemented will take persistence (from MAG members and the broader IGF) community.It would be good, for example, for the IGC to assess how it can do this. My reasons for not making myself available for the CSTD EC working group were: - I felt some conflict of interest in being the focal pointwhile at the same time making myself available - I thought it would be good to give people who had not been on the previous WG (IGF improvements) a chance (but I do take the point about the value of continuity) - With IGF improvements I had a very clear vision of what could be done, and APC had been putting forward proposals to improve the IGF since the beginning of the process. I had no doubt that I would be able to make a valuable contribution to the WG. With enhanced cooperation I don't have solutions (yet) and my primary contribution would have been to raise questions. Not invaluable, I know, but others cando that as well as I can. - I am very busy.. too busy :) Anriette On 15/03/2013 12:52, William Drake wrote: > I know, but experience and expertise are pretty valuable in these situations… > > > On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Bill, I think she is in another CSTD WG? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/14/2013 05:47 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> Anriette >>> >>> Congratulations on a well done process under difficult circumstances, although it's a pity you felt the need to exclude yourself from consideration…. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>>> >>>> *Background* >>>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >>>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >>>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >>>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>>> >>>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >>>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >>>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >>>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>>> >>>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >>>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >>>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>>> >>>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>>> >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >>>> convenor of the group. >>>> >>>> >>>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >>>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>>> >>>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >>>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >>>> >>>> *Nominees* >>>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >>>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >>>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >>>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>>> >>>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >>>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>>> >>>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >>>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >>>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >>>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>>> >>>> *Scoring process* >>>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >>>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >>>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >>>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>>> >>>> >>>> The criteria were as follows: >>>> >>>> >>>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. >>>> >>>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>>> >>>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>>> >>>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >>>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>>> conflicting interests. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Shortlist* >>>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >>>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>>> regional and gender balance. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >>>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >>>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>>> >>>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >>>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>>> >>>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. >>>> >>>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >>>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >>>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Mar 15 07:59:15 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:59:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> Message-ID: <51430D13.8060901@cafonso.ca> Yes, the last reason is fundamental!! And do not be ashamed to say that being on this long, long road for a long, long time, as one of civil society's best, brightest and most experienced cadres, you may be tired as well. :) fraternal regards --c.a. On 03/15/2013 08:45 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for the confidence, Bill. > > c.a. I served (along with Izumi, Parminder, Wolfgang and Marilia) on the > CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements. > > It was hard work but we managed to come up with a relative good report. > It could have been more hard hitting, but as a consensus document > emerging from a process in which stakeholders started from vastly > different perspectives, it is not bad. > > Getting these recommendations implemented will take persistence (from > MAG members and the broader IGF) community.It would be good, for > example, for the IGC to assess how it can do this. > > My reasons for not making myself available for the CSTD EC working group > were: > > - I felt some conflict of interest in being the focal pointwhile at the > same time making myself available > - I thought it would be good to give people who had not been on the > previous WG (IGF improvements) a chance (but I do take the point about > the value of continuity) > - With IGF improvements I had a very clear vision of what could be done, > and APC had been putting forward proposals to improve the IGF since the > beginning of the process. I had no doubt that I would be able to make a > valuable contribution to the WG. With enhanced cooperation I don't have > solutions (yet) and my primary contribution would have been to raise > questions. Not invaluable, I know, but others cando that as well as I can. > - I am very busy.. too busy :) > > Anriette > > > > On 15/03/2013 12:52, William Drake wrote: >> I know, but experience and expertise are pretty valuable in these situations… >> >> >> On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Bill, I think she is in another CSTD WG? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 03/14/2013 05:47 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> Congratulations on a well done process under difficult circumstances, although it's a pity you felt the need to exclude yourself from consideration…. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>>>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>>>> >>>>> *Background* >>>>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >>>>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >>>>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>>>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >>>>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>>>> >>>>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >>>>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>>>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>>>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >>>>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >>>>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>>>> >>>>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >>>>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>>>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>>>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >>>>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>>>> >>>>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>>>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>>>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>>>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>>>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>>>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>>>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >>>>> convenor of the group. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >>>>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>>>> >>>>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >>>>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>>>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>>>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>>>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>>>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>>>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >>>>> >>>>> *Nominees* >>>>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>>>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >>>>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >>>>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>>>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >>>>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>>>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>>>> >>>>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>>>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>>>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >>>>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>>>> >>>>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >>>>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >>>>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >>>>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>>>> >>>>> *Scoring process* >>>>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>>>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >>>>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >>>>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>>>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >>>>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The criteria were as follows: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. >>>>> >>>>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>>>> >>>>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>>>> >>>>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >>>>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>>>> conflicting interests. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Shortlist* >>>>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>>>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >>>>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>>>> regional and gender balance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>>>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>>>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>>>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >>>>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >>>>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>>>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>>>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>>>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >>>>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>>>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>>>> >>>>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. >>>>> >>>>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >>>>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >>>>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>>>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>>>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>>>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>>>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 15 08:04:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:04:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130315130403.70e1182a@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > c.a. I served (along with Izumi, Parminder, Wolfgang and Marilia) on > the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements. > > It was hard work but we managed to come up with a relative good > report. It could have been more hard hitting, but as a consensus > document emerging from a process in which stakeholders started from > vastly different perspectives, it is not bad. > > Getting these recommendations implemented will take persistence (from > MAG members and the broader IGF) community.It would be good, for > example, for the IGC to assess how it can do this. As you know, we had a strong emphasis on some key points of this in IGC's recent "written contribution", and I also strongly emphasized them in person in Paris. Is there anything else that IGC can reasonably do in this area at the current stage? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 09:00:00 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:00:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear All, > > I think this is a serious matter. Let me argue why. This group, and perhaps > much of IG civil society, has been rather focussed on multistakeholderism as > a new participatory form of democracy (hopefully!). Now, it is easy to say > that civil society, business and technical comunity should be at the policy > making table or at least involved substantially. But the immediate question > then is; who among these groups should be allowed in? Representivity > therefore is the most key issue that participatory democracy and > multistakeholderism (MSism) must constantly deal with. Since it is the > contention of this movement that elections *do not exhaust" public > representation, and that they need to be complemented by other forms, it > must show how it adds to public representativity and, rather, does not take > away from it. > > This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and I invite the numerous > theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage with the > episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key > legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when > indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, not > even everyone who turns up. I think it ironic that in the technical community processes I'm involved in everyone who shows up "gets a seat at the table", while in the UN processes that are allegedly MS, there is an insistence on "representivity" by CS advocates. The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected by folks in CS at WSIS, so I don't see how we can complain they are their own SG when we won't tolerate them in our SG! -- 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 Fri Mar 15 09:19:00 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:19:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Comment below On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, parminder wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I think this is a serious matter. Let me argue why. This group, and perhaps >> much of IG civil society, has been rather focussed on multistakeholderism as >> a new participatory form of democracy (hopefully!). Now, it is easy to say >> that civil society, business and technical comunity should be at the policy >> making table or at least involved substantially. But the immediate question >> then is; who among these groups should be allowed in? Representivity >> therefore is the most key issue that participatory democracy and >> multistakeholderism (MSism) must constantly deal with. Since it is the >> contention of this movement that elections *do not exhaust" public >> representation, and that they need to be complemented by other forms, it >> must show how it adds to public representativity and, rather, does not take >> away from it. >> >> This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and I invite the numerous >> theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage with the >> episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key >> legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when >> indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, not >> even everyone who turns up. > > I think it ironic that in the technical community processes I'm > involved in everyone who shows up "gets a seat at the table", while in > the UN processes that are allegedly MS, there is an insistence on > "representivity" by CS advocates. > > The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected > by folks in CS at WSIS, As one of the people coordinating this caucus at the time - no they weren't Adam > so I don't see how we can complain they are > their own SG when we won't tolerate them in our SG! > > > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 09:41:27 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Comment below > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I think this is a serious matter. Let me argue why. This group, and perhaps >>> much of IG civil society, has been rather focussed on multistakeholderism as >>> a new participatory form of democracy (hopefully!). Now, it is easy to say >>> that civil society, business and technical comunity should be at the policy >>> making table or at least involved substantially. But the immediate question >>> then is; who among these groups should be allowed in? Representivity >>> therefore is the most key issue that participatory democracy and >>> multistakeholderism (MSism) must constantly deal with. Since it is the >>> contention of this movement that elections *do not exhaust" public >>> representation, and that they need to be complemented by other forms, it >>> must show how it adds to public representativity and, rather, does not take >>> away from it. >>> >>> This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and I invite the numerous >>> theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage with the >>> episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key >>> legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when >>> indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, not >>> even everyone who turns up. >> >> I think it ironic that in the technical community processes I'm >> involved in everyone who shows up "gets a seat at the table", while in >> the UN processes that are allegedly MS, there is an insistence on >> "representivity" by CS advocates. >> >> The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected >> by folks in CS at WSIS, > > > As one of the people coordinating this caucus at the time - no they weren't Is it not the case that (on this list specifically) the consensus has been that the T&A are NOT CS proper? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 15 09:44:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:14:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514325B2.5030706@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 March 2013 06:30 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and I invite the numerous >> theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage with the >> episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key >> legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when >> indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, not >> even everyone who turns up. > I think it ironic that in the technical community processes I'm > involved in everyone who shows up "gets a seat at the table", while in > the UN processes that are allegedly MS, there is an insistence on > "representivity" by CS advocates. We are not advocating anything, That is the process - take it or leave it. And I note that you havent left it - did you not offer to be selected by the IGC nomcom to be CS representative (representative as in representivity) on the MAG, and your name was actually forwarded by the nomcom ? > The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected > by folks in CS at WSIS, so I don't see how we can complain they are > their own SG when we won't tolerate them in our SG! You identify yourself above as technical community (if you dont I am still ready to go by your self identification, but just be clear and dont confuse people here) ..... have you been ejected from civil society. You have been one of the most active participants in drafting CS positions here, and as above offered yourself for, and was selected by the group as, CS nominee for MAG.... So, McTim, what exactly are you talking about..... And BTW, at WSIS ISOC registered itself as private sector when the option was given to it to choose between CS and private sector as the too only available options. So, again not sure what are you talking about ISOC having been ejected by folks in CS at WSIS... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 15 09:55:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:55:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] US industry wants government to take "light touch" approach on cyberthreats Message-ID: <20130315145528.3d0d2d21@quill.bollow.ch> As cyber threats build against U.S., CEOs ask for "light touch" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/net-us-usa-obama-cyber-idUSBRE92C0JN20130313 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Mar 15 09:58:08 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:58:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <20130315130403.70e1182a@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> <20130315130403.70e1182a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <514328F0.10408@apc.org> Dear Norbert Re. IGC members implementing recommendations on CSTD WG on IGF improvements: On 15/03/2013 14:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: [snip] > As you know, we had a strong emphasis on some key points of this in > IGC's recent "written contribution", and I also strongly emphasized > them in person in Paris. > > Is there anything else that IGC can reasonably do in this area at the > current stage? The short answer is to use the mechanism of 'policy questions' in workshop proposals and using the proposed format for documenting outcomes (see below); to help identify ways in which funding for the IGF can be increased (already happening e.g. but many of us supporting participation in the IGF but we should do as much as possible); for those of us from developing countries to urge our governments to participate actively and to understand that to get value out of the IGF you have to put in to it as well; to link whenever possible IGF outcomes to other decision-making processes. The long answer will need a bit more thinking and careful reading of the recommendations. But some well formulated workshop proposals that really do address policy questions will be a great start. Anriette The Working Group makes the following recommendations: 1. Develop more tangible outputs 12. To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the outcome documentation. 13. The outcome documentation should include messages that map out converging and diverging opinions on given questions. 14. The IGF should continue to produce and enhance its current reports, including the Chair's report, the sessions' transcripts, the workshop reports and the overall proceedings. 2. Improve the visibility of the IGF 15. Improve the visibility and availability of IGF outcomes by means of enhanced IGF communication tools and strategy to make the relevant documents available to all relevant stakeholders as well as the media. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 10:05:55 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:05:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: <5143071E.8060408@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5143071E.8060408@apc.org> Message-ID: In fact, the designation or the involvement of all stakeholders often depends devices or consultative framework implementation in each country. National IGFs often provide such a framework. And it is within this framework that is also refunds all meetings pertaining to ICT or digital technology, for example. It is undeniable that the presence of Universities (academia) and technical communities is essential as it is also eligible entities of the civil society that have the competence and can also be sollicited and involved. Formula increasingly accepted view is the policy makers play their role as partners in coordination with private sector and of civil society entities (Universities, NGOs, religious groups, unions .....). Each component has a social place and can be represented. The PrepCom has sufficiently demonstrated that multistakeholderism approach convincing results. It is appropriate to improve this approach. Baudouin 2013/3/15, Anriette Esterhuysen : > Hi all.. I am completelyswamped with work.. so this is quick. > > 1) I am not against the idea of setting up a 'joint mechanism' of some > kind for CS to do selections, but at the same time I think we would not > being too bureaucratic. > > 2) As for other non-governmental groups and how they identify their > representatives, I would suggest we ask for transparency and leave it at > that. We know that our own processes are imperfect and I don't think > that finger pointing at any other group will help. Not to mention that > there is a lot of room for improvement in how governments select their > representatives. And they are SUCH AN IMPORTANT stakeholder group. If we > are going to start reviewingselection processes why only look at non-gov > stakeholders. > > 3) I personally believe that the technical community is an important > stakeholder group in IG that does deserve recognition and > representation. I would agree that no one body should dominate how > representation is identified, but that also applies to CS and Business > and it is indeed something thatIGC should support. > > 4) My concern (and I wrote about this at length during the early stages > of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements) is that CS had to share our slots > with the academic community. I know this is controversial, and in Paris > some academic CSparticipants challenged me on my position. I respect > that some of the most active and dynamic individuals in the IG CS space > are academics, but: > > - CS is so diversethat we should be having as manyslots as possible for > CS organisations to widen representationand ideas > - The non-technical academic input into IG is similarly so vital > (particularly in thinking of social impacts of the internet in the > future) that it should be recognised as a stakeholder group in its own > right. > > My view has always been therefore, even if it takes a General Assembly > resolution, that either (a) CS are given more slots than other > non-governmental stakeholder groups in recognition of the fact that we > include non-tech academics or (b) that the non-tech academic community > be recognised as an important stakeholder group in its own right. > > Anriette > > > On 15/03/2013 13:10, Baudouin Schombe wrote: >> I think Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should >> not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a >> time given. >> >> Baudouin >> >> 2013/3/15, Nnenna : >>> Quoting Norbert: >>> >>> > >>> Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in >>> this area. >>> >>> Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of joint >>> board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations which >>> would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that would >>> avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process only to >>> have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the CSTD WG) >>> almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection process. >>> >>> I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think >>> about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. >>> >>> >>> In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working >>> Methods" >>> caucus/group. >>> >>> That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time. But for those who are >>> interested in process.. >>> >>> This may be a good time to do this again. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants >>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development >>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org >>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Norbert Bollow >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. >>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> I quote below >>>> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on >>>> Improvements to the IGF. >>>> >>>> (quote begins) >>> [..] >>>> (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the >>>> process that works best for their own culture and methods of >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Mar 15 10:15:02 2013 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:15:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] In-Reply-To: <20130315122910.382de64e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <20130315112654.13328543@quill.bollow.ch> <1363344384.60722.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130315122910.382de64e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <023101ce2187$7cc17d80$76447880$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Hi Norbert, The working Group on Working Methods (WGWM) was initiated at the beginning of the process of the WSIS second phase: there were Ramine, Rik myself, we did a very good job for the civil society working methods regarding its involvement in the summit. Is it applicable for the IGC ? Unfortunately, I lost all my data because my hard disk crashed. But I’m sure that Rik or Ramine must have the documents produced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Norbert Bollow Envoyé : vendredi 15 mars 2013 12:29 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe Cc : Nnenna Objet : Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update [Workin Methods] Baudouin Schombe wrote: > I think Nnenna proposal deserves to be taken into account. we should > not reinvent the wheel but improve the approach that was positive at a > time given. Is there some written documentation of the work of that "Working Methods" caucus/group? Greetings, Norbert > 2013/3/15, Nnenna : > > Quoting Norbert: > > > > > > > Civil society definitely needs to do an important bit of homework in > > this area. > > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt suggested a while back to set up some kind of > > joint board of the various leading civil society meta-organizations > > which would be able to carry out such selection tasks in a way that > > would avoid the problem of IGC running a full-fledged NomCom process > > only to have the result partly or (as happened in the case of the > > CSTD WG) almost totally ignored at the next step of the selection > > process. > > > > I would suggest that it is time to revisit this idea, and also think > > about whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. > >> > > > > > > > > In the beginning days of WSIS PrepComs, I recall we had a "Working > > Methods" caucus/group. > > > > That was 10 years ago, and yes, a long time. But for those who are > > interested in process.. > > > > This may be a good time to do this again. > > > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for > > Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 > > |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > > http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 > > | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Norbert Bollow > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org. > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > > > Parminder wrote: > > > >> I quote below > >> the relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on > >> Improvements to the IGF. > >> > >> (quote begins) > > [..] > >> (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the > >> process that works best for their own culture and methods of > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 10:20:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:20:31 -0700 Subject: FW: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> Message-ID: <024b01ce2188$482387c0$d86a9740$@gmail.com> I'ld like to thank IGC colleagues for their encouragement and support in the matter of my "nomination" on behalf of the "Technical and Academic" stakeholder group to the CSTD WG on EC. I would strongly encourage CS to proceed with the proposed letter protesting the failures in the process as evidenced to date by the T/A focal point. Insisting that the various actors in these processes abide by standard norms of accountability and transparency is I believe, a necessary role for CS. I am however, very concerned at the continued silence from the T/A focal point/grouping in these matters. The failure to provide a clear accounting of the procedures and criteria which have gone into the selection activities as Anriette Esterhuysen has done so ably on behalf of CS, I believe, directly undermines the legitimacy of the entire multistakeholder process. As we all know, if there is no accountability and transparency there is no legitimacy and if there is no legitimacy then a fledgling approach to governance such as multistakeholderism will necessarily appear to the world as simply a mask for the pursuit of narrow interests by another name. Again, since there would appear to be no evidence of formal processes being in place within the T/A group, with this note I'm giving notice that I will be launching a formal appeal to the Chair of the CSTD WG and asking that the nominations of the T/A group be suspended in this area until such time as its formal processes and widely legitimized criteria of selection are made known to the general community. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 11:01:31 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group In-Reply-To: <6C65EFB6-3CBC-11D9-8372-000A9575083C@earthlink.net> References: <6C65EFB6-3CBC-11D9-8372-000A9575083C@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Rik Panganiban To: Robert Guerra ; Derrick Cogburn ; viola Krebs ; Renata Bloem Cc: v.bertola at bertola.eu.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' ; nne75 at yahoo.com; Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:26 PM Subject: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group Dear Viola, Robert, Derrick and Renata, I just wanted to give you all fair notice that folks who met in Berlin on Saturday night are planning to send out to the plenary shortly an announcement of the formation of a "Civil Society Working Methods" working group to collaborate on the internal procedures and processes of civil society in the 2nd Phase of the WSIS.  I know this is a subject near and dear to your hearts, so I didn't want you to be surprised by it. This does not clash in any way with the Bureau's efforts to improve and evolve its own work and methods.  In fact we hope it is a useful resource for any working group of the bureau that gets formed.  But we think the orientation is distinctly different, since the bureau is focused on the modalities of civil society in relation to the official WSIS process, rather than internally among each other. The starting point for discussions we feel should be what has been learned from how we operated in WSIS I and what are the key principles that we should base our working methods on.  The next steps are : what are key CS process questions to be addressed for WSIS-II, and what are some basic standards and working methods that we can all agree on to work effectively and democratically together. An important goal is to make sure that we are much more effective at Prepcom II in February than we were at Prepcom I.  I have attached my notes from our meeting, which is mostly just a list of questions and some process ideas. Regards, Rik =============================================== RIK PANGANIBAN      Communications Coordinator Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) web: http://www.ngocongo.org email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524 ** Please note CONGO's new mailing address: CP 50, 1211 Genéve 20, Switzerland.  Our physical office address is 11, Avenue De La Paix, 1st Floor, 1202 Genéve, Switzerland. ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: workingmethodsmtg1104.doc Type: application/msword Size: 25088 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 13:24:50 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:24:50 -0500 Subject: FW: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <024b01ce2188$482387c0$d86a9740$@gmail.com> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <5142F95B.8000901@cafonso.ca> <555C3003-2A33-4347-918E-53152043BAC5@uzh.ch> <514309F3.5040700@apc.org> <024b01ce2188$482387c0$d86a9740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hola...creo que hay problemas... Creo que hay utilizar los mecanismos de "cuestiones políticas" en las propuestas de identificar las formas en que se puedan recabar financiamiento para el aumento de IGF para los que venimos de países en desarrollo Para instar a nuestros gobiernos a participar activamente y entender que para obtener el valor de la IGF tienen que poner financiamiento en él también. Siempre que sea posible vincular los resultados de IGF a otros procesos de adopción de decisiones en bienestar de una Internet libre. *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/15 michael gurstein > I'ld like to thank IGC colleagues for their encouragement and support in the matter of my "nomination" on behalf of the "Technical and Academic" stakeholder group to the CSTD WG on EC. **** > > * * > > I would strongly encourage CS to proceed with the proposed letter protesting the failures in the process as evidenced to date by the T/A focal point. Insisting that the various actors in these processes abide by standard norms of accountability and transparency is I believe, a necessary role for CS.**** > > ** ** > > I am however, very concerned at the continued silence from the T/A focal point/grouping in these matters. The failure to provide a clear accounting of the procedures and criteria which have gone into the selection activities as Anriette Esterhuysen has done so ably on behalf of CS, I believe, directly undermines the legitimacy of the entire multistakeholder process. **** > > ** ** > > As we all know, if there is no accountability and transparency there is no legitimacy and if there is no legitimacy then a fledgling approach to governance such as multistakeholderism will necessarily appear to the world as simply a mask for the pursuit of narrow interests by another name.**** > > ** ** > > Again, since there would appear to be no evidence of formal processes being in place within the T/A group, with this note I'm giving notice that I will be launching a formal appeal to the Chair of the CSTD WG and asking that the nominations of the T/A group be suspended in this area until such time as its formal processes and widely legitimized criteria of selection are made known to the general community.**** > > ** ** > > Mike**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 13:48:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:48:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Request to Suspend Technical and Academic Stakeholder Nomination Process for WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <037401ce21a4$99f95310$cdebf930$@gmail.com> References: <037401ce21a4$99f95310$cdebf930$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <037b01ce21a5$49f7cc60$dde76520$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:43 AM To: mjpalomino at rree.gob.pe Subject: Request to Suspend Technical and Academic Stakeholder Nomination Process for WG on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Ambassador Palomino de la Gala, As I believe you know, I have submitted my name for possible nomination to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation through the Technical and Academic (T/A) stakeholder group. By explanation, while I have been active within the CS component of both the IGF and the WSIS processes, my "day job"/professional activities are within the area of Community Informatics (and previously Information Systems) and specifically I have been concerned as an academic and researcher/practitioner with extending the benefits of Internet access and use to the widest range of potential users -- in marginalized areas of Canada, among Indigenous Peoples and within LDC's. On that basis it was my feeling and those of my Community Informatics colleagues that my most appropriate designation in areas concerned with such matters as "Enhanced Cooperation" should be through my professional and academic knowledge and experience rather than through my normative positions as would be the case in seeking nomination through the Civil Society stakeholder group. I have thus submitted my name as above to the T/A group. However, I understand that I have not been recommended for this role by them, not because of a lack of qualification but rather because it was felt that I didn't fall within the defining "criteria" of the T/A group which initially was presented as - Gender and geographic balance - Familiarity with the WSIS process - Ability to travel (no funding available) - Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group - Representing the technical and academic communities Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having contributed to the building of the Internet". Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires"). At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation (where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have technically built the Internet". Subject of course to correction, my understanding is that there is no such formal available definition of the composition of the T/A stakeholder group. I fully recognize that the selection of the composition of the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation is at the complete discretion of yourself, the Chair, in consultation with others within the CSTD and associated UN officials (as I'm presuming also is the formal definition of the composition of the T/A stakeholder group). All of the above has been communicated on several occasions with Ms. Constance Bommelaer the T/A focal point along with a request for an articulation of the formal procedures being followed in their adjudication processes in this area including an explanation, clarification and formal justification for the criteria used in the nomination process by the T/A stakeholder group in anticipation of the WG on EC. Although additional information was promised to me by Ms. Bommelaer I have not as yet received this and in that instance and given the urgency with which I understand this process is being undertaken, I would formally ask that you not accept nominations from the T/A stakeholder group until clarification as above has been formally circulated and until such time as my own nomination has been reviewed and assessed within the context of those procedures and in the light of publicly accessible and generally confirmed selection criteria. Sincerely, Michael Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA Adjunct Professor: School of Library, Archival and Information Studies University of British Columbia Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics web: http://ci-journal.net Research Fellow: Institute of Advanced Systems Russian Academy of Sciences Honorary Fellow: Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovations University of Malaysia, Kuching Focal point: BRICS Research Collaborative on Digital Inclusion -- (Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa) Research Associate: IT Innovation in Remote First Nations in Canada Lead Consultant: Community Informatics and Policy Development: NEPAD/African Union tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Mar 15 14:27:40 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:27:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2A4E8F5E-D7A0-479D-A91E-7F37430EB19E@uzh.ch> On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected >> by folks in CS at WSIS, > > > As one of the people coordinating this caucus at the time - no they weren't History's all wrong, McTim. Sorry 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Mar 15 14:29:23 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:29:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group In-Reply-To: <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <6C65EFB6-3CBC-11D9-8372-000A9575083C@earthlink.net> <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna That was a different group for CS @ WSIS generally. The IGC thing was the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG). Did some good work back in 2006 but then drifted off. I have a number of the docs still. This bit from a letter to Markus caused me to wince, The MMWG sees the IGF primarily as a process in which an annual “Forum” is embedded and not as an independent singular event which takes place once a year. As the WGIG report has stated, there is “a vacuum” in the global discussion process with regard to Internet Governance. Such a vacuum would not be filled by a three or four day meeting every fall. Sigh… Bill On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Rik Panganiban > To: Robert Guerra ; Derrick Cogburn ; viola Krebs ; Renata Bloem > Cc: v.bertola at bertola.eu.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' ; nne75 at yahoo.com; Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:26 PM > Subject: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group > > Dear Viola, Robert, Derrick and Renata, > > I just wanted to give you all fair notice that folks who met in Berlin on Saturday night are planning to send out to the plenary shortly an announcement of the formation of a "Civil Society Working Methods" working group to collaborate on the internal procedures and processes of civil society in the 2nd Phase of the WSIS. I know this is a subject near and dear to your hearts, so I didn't want you to be surprised by it. > > This does not clash in any way with the Bureau's efforts to improve and evolve its own work and methods. In fact we hope it is a useful resource for any working group of the bureau that gets formed. But we think the orientation is distinctly different, since the bureau is focused on the modalities of civil society in relation to the official WSIS process, rather than internally among each other. > > The starting point for discussions we feel should be what has been learned from how we operated in WSIS I and what are the key principles that we should base our working methods on. The next steps are : what are key CS process questions to be addressed for WSIS-II, and what are some basic standards and working methods that we can all agree on to work effectively and democratically together. > > An important goal is to make sure that we are much more effective at Prepcom II in February than we were at Prepcom I. I have attached my notes from our meeting, which is mostly just a list of questions and some process ideas. > > Regards, > > Rik > > > > =============================================== > RIK PANGANIBAN Communications Coordinator > Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) > web: http://www.ngocongo.org > email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org > mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524 > > ** Please note CONGO's new mailing address: CP 50, 1211 Genéve 20, Switzerland. Our physical office address is 11, Avenue De La Paix, 1st Floor, 1202 Genéve, Switzerland. ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 14:50:38 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group In-Reply-To: References: <6C65EFB6-3CBC-11D9-8372-000A9575083C@earthlink.net> <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1363373438.78318.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi Bill I was referring to this particular one. The role of that group then was to see what worked in WSIS 1 and improve that process fr WSIS 2. I think at the stage where we are as IG Caucus, we can evaluate: 1. What process methods have worked 2. How do we better improve our own working methods The issues of openness, transparency, representation are still here. Seeing the "Anriette process" and the T/A process, I would say: Why dont CS work on a process for selections?  In other words, document "Anriette process", discuss it, add to it and improve it. Having been around many CS meetings, before gently retiring, I have seen the same issues rear their head.. IGF, CSTD, MAG, WCIT and in May WTPF... Best Nnenna   ________________________________ From: William Drake To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group Hi Nnenna That was a different group for CS @ WSIS generally.  The IGC thing was the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG).  Did some good work back in 2006 but then drifted off.  I have a number of the docs still.  This bit from a letter to Markus caused me to wince, The MMWG sees the IGF primarily as a process in which an annual “Forum” is embedded and not as an independent singular event which takes place once a year. As the WGIG report has stated, there is “a vacuum” in the global discussion process with regard to Internet Governance. Such a vacuum would not be filled by a three or four day meeting every fall. Sigh… Bill On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Nnenna wrote:   > > >Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants >Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development >Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org >nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: Rik Panganiban >To: Robert Guerra ; Derrick Cogburn ; viola Krebs ; Renata Bloem >Cc: v.bertola at bertola.eu.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' ; nne75 at yahoo.com; Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org >Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:26 PM >Subject: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group > >Dear Viola, Robert, Derrick and Renata, > >I just wanted to give you all fair notice that folks who met in Berlin on Saturday night are planning to send out to the plenary shortly an announcement of the formation of a "Civil Society Working Methods" working group to collaborate on the internal procedures and processes of civil society in the 2nd Phase of the WSIS.  I know this is a subject near and dear to your hearts, so I didn't want you to be surprised by it. > >This does not clash in any way with the Bureau's efforts to improve and evolve its own work and methods.  In fact we hope it is a useful resource for any working group of the bureau that gets formed.  But we think the orientation is distinctly different, since the bureau is focused on the modalities of civil society in relation to the official WSIS process, rather than internally among each other. > >The starting point for discussions we feel should be what has been learned from how we operated in WSIS I and what are the key principles that we should base our working methods on.  The next steps are : what are key CS process questions to be addressed for WSIS-II, and what are some basic standards and working methods that we can all agree on to work effectively and democratically together. > >An important goal is to make sure that we are much more effective at Prepcom II in February than we were at Prepcom I.  I have attached my notes from our meeting, which is mostly just a list of questions and some process ideas. > >Regards, > >Rik > > > >=============================================== >RIK PANGANIBAN      Communications Coordinator >Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) >web: http://www.ngocongo.org/ >email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org >mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524 > >** Please note CONGO's new mailing address: CP 50, 1211 Genéve 20, Switzerland.  Our physical office address is 11, Avenue De La Paix, 1st Floor, 1202 Genéve, Switzerland. ** > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 15:03:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:03:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <514325B2.5030706@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <11c601ce209c$67730020$36590060$@gmail.com> <5141A97F.8080309@ciroap.org> <5142B7BC.6@itforchange.net> <514325B2.5030706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:44 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 15 March 2013 06:30 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and I invite the numerous >>> theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage with the >>> episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this key >>> legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, when >>> indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the table, >>> not >>> even everyone who turns up. >> >> I think it ironic that in the technical community processes I'm >> involved in everyone who shows up "gets a seat at the table", while in >> the UN processes that are allegedly MS, there is an insistence on >> "representivity" by CS advocates. > > > We are not advocating anything, That is the process - take it or leave it. It's the take it or leave ot-ness that is alien to the traditional Internet Governance processes. > And I note that you havent left it - did you not offer to be selected by the > IGC nomcom to be CS representative (representative as in representivity) on > the MAG, and your name was actually forwarded by the nomcom ? > >> The T&A Community is a separate grouping because they were (r)ejected >> by folks in CS at WSIS, so I don't see how we can complain they are >> their own SG when we won't tolerate them in our SG! > > > You identify yourself above as technical community (if you dont I am still > ready to go by your self identification, but just be clear and dont confuse > people here) ..... have you been ejected from civil society. You have been > one of the most active participants in drafting CS positions here, and as > above offered yourself for, and was selected by the group as, CS nominee for > MAG.... So, McTim, what exactly are you talking about..... I for one feel that the T&A folks ARE CS, but I've posited this before, and found much disagreement. > > And BTW, at WSIS ISOC registered itself as private sector when the option > was given to it to choose between CS and private sector as the too only > available options. So, again not sure what are you talking about ISOC having > been ejected by folks in CS at WSIS... Did I say ISOC had been ejected? I was told (and have experienced first hand on this list over many years that ISOC and the rest of the Technical Community aren't "real" CS, they are more in-line with Trade Associations, hence they were not considered CS @WSIS. As MG's actions have pointed out, we can have one foot in each camp. I think it hubristic of IGC to think they can sway who gets appointed by other SGs however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Mar 15 16:13:01 2013 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:13:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group In-Reply-To: <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <6C65EFB6-3CBC-11D9-8372-000A9575083C@earthlink.net> <1363359691.23065.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <031c01ce21b9$7fbb49d0$7f31dd70$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Thank you Nnenna, This was the first meeting, and more precisely the founding meeting in Berlin. All the subsequent meetings took place in Geneva during the PrepComs of the second phase ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Nnenna Envoyé : vendredi 15 mars 2013 16:02 À : IG Caucus Objet : [governance] [HISTORY FILES1] Fw: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Rik Panganiban To: Robert Guerra ; Derrick Cogburn ; viola Krebs ; Renata Bloem Cc: v.bertola at bertola.eu.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' ; nne75 at yahoo.com; Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:26 PM Subject: heads up on new "CS Working Methods" group Dear Viola, Robert, Derrick and Renata, I just wanted to give you all fair notice that folks who met in Berlin on Saturday night are planning to send out to the plenary shortly an announcement of the formation of a "Civil Society Working Methods" working group to collaborate on the internal procedures and processes of civil society in the 2nd Phase of the WSIS. I know this is a subject near and dear to your hearts, so I didn't want you to be surprised by it. This does not clash in any way with the Bureau's efforts to improve and evolve its own work and methods. In fact we hope it is a useful resource for any working group of the bureau that gets formed. But we think the orientation is distinctly different, since the bureau is focused on the modalities of civil society in relation to the official WSIS process, rather than internally among each other. The starting point for discussions we feel should be what has been learned from how we operated in WSIS I and what are the key principles that we should base our working methods on. The next steps are : what are key CS process questions to be addressed for WSIS-II, and what are some basic standards and working methods that we can all agree on to work effectively and democratically together. An important goal is to make sure that we are much more effective at Prepcom II in February than we were at Prepcom I. I have attached my notes from our meeting, which is mostly just a list of questions and some process ideas. Regards, Rik =============================================== RIK PANGANIBAN Communications Coordinator Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) web: http://www.ngocongo.org email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524 ** Please note CONGO's new mailing address: CP 50, 1211 Genéve 20, Switzerland. Our physical office address is 11, Avenue De La Paix, 1st Floor, 1202 Genéve, Switzerland. ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Mar 15 20:26:24 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:26:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] EFF: National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules In-Reply-To: <5143BBA1.8000107@eff.org> References: <5143BBA1.8000107@eff.org> Message-ID: <5143BC30.4040701@eff.org> Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Friday, March 15, 2013 Contact: Matt Zimmerman Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation mattz at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x127 Cindy Cohn Legal Director Electronic Frontier Foundation cindy at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office), +1 415 307-2148 (cell) Kurt Opsahl Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation kurt at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x106 National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules Court Finds NSL Statutes Violate First Amendment and Separation of Powers San Francisco - A federal district court judge in San Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). In the ruling publicly released today, Judge Susan Illston ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 days to allow the government to appeal. "We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "The government's gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience." The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative letters -- on its own authority and without court approval -- to telecommunications companies demanding information about their customers. The controversial provisions also permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying either their customers or the public. The limited judicial review provisions essentially write the courts out of the process. In today's ruling, the court held that the gag order provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and that the review procedures violate separation of powers. Because those provisions were not separable from the rest of the statute, the court declared the entire statute unconstitutional. In addressing the concerns of the service provider, the court noted: "Petitioner was adamant about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing public debate." "The First Amendment prevents the government from silencing people and stopping them from criticizing its use of executive surveillance power," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "The NSL statute has long been a concern of many Americans, and this small step should help restore balance between liberty and security." EFF first brought this challenge on behalf of its client in May of 2011. For the full order: https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 For more on this case: https://www.eff.org/cases/re-matter-2011-national-security-letter For this release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules About EFF The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading organization protecting civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. Find out more athttps://www.eff.org. -end- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 15 21:05:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:35:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] EFF: National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules In-Reply-To: <5143BC30.4040701@eff.org> References: <5143BBA1.8000107@eff.org> <5143BC30.4040701@eff.org> Message-ID: Congratulations. I am sure the doj is going to appeal this though. Long, hard road ahead. --srs (iPad) On 16-Mar-2013, at 5:56, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release > > For Immediate Release: Friday, March 15, 2013 > > Contact: > > Matt Zimmerman > Senior Staff Attorney > Electronic Frontier Foundation > mattz at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x127 > > Cindy Cohn > Legal Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > cindy at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office), +1 415 307-2148 (cell) > > Kurt Opsahl > Senior Staff Attorney > Electronic Frontier Foundation > kurt at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x106 > > National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal > Judge Rules > > Court Finds NSL Statutes Violate First Amendment and > Separation of Powers > > San Francisco - A federal district court judge in San > Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) > provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The > decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of > an unnamed telecommunications company represented by the > Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). > > In the ruling publicly released today, Judge Susan Illston > ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop > issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this > or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 > days to allow the government to appeal. > > "We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal > constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," said EFF > Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "The government's > gags have truncated the public debate on these > controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward > to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience." > > The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf > of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative > letters -- on its own authority and without court approval > -- to telecommunications companies demanding information > about their customers. The controversial provisions also > permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from > revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that > a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying > either their customers or the public. The limited judicial > review provisions essentially write the courts out of the > process. > > In today's ruling, the court held that the gag order > provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and > that the review procedures violate separation of powers. > Because those provisions were not separable from the rest > of the statute, the court declared the entire statute > unconstitutional. In addressing the concerns of the > service provider, the court noted: "Petitioner was adamant > about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it > received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing > public debate." > > "The First Amendment prevents the government from silencing > people and stopping them from criticizing its use of > executive surveillance power," said EFF Legal Director > Cindy Cohn. "The NSL statute has long been a concern of > many Americans, and this small step should help restore > balance between liberty and security." > > EFF first brought this challenge on behalf of its client in > May of 2011. > > For the full order: > https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 > > For more on this case: > https://www.eff.org/cases/re-matter-2011-national-security-letter > > For this release: > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules > > About EFF > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading > organization protecting civil liberties in the digital > world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight > illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital > innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms > we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of > technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. > Find out more athttps://www.eff.org. > > > -end- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Mar 15 22:05:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:05:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Message-ID: Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 23:59:56 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:59:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's a fine letter if what we want to accomplish is to piss off our natural allies in the WG. IG should be done (and is done in the Technical Community) by coordination, collaboration and cooperation. This letter is none of those things. It's bad strategy, bad politics and the only thing it will do is provoke another SG group. If we do send this letter, then logically, we must also send a letter to the biz folk asking them to abide by the same process. While we are at it, we should insist that the govs pick folk in the same way! We learned of the CS process 2 days ago, and while I think it was well done, I hardly think it should be held up as a model of openness and transparency (since we only learned of it after it had finished). The bottom line is that they aren't going to change their minds about who they pick, no matter how much we hold our breath and stomp our feet! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting > a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that > outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane > on the right hand side. > > -- > > 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 Sat Mar 16 00:16:20 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:16:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, McTim wrote: > It's a fine letter if what we want to accomplish is to piss off our > natural allies in the WG. > > [ST>]I think that they are professionals and would not be pissed as it is merely stating and asserting a position. Dialogue is critical and if the letter can encourage dialogue to commence afterall championing a free and open society by its very ethos demands that there is dialogue over issues and concerns not matter how difficult the situation. > IG should be done (and is done in the Technical Community) by > coordination, collaboration and cooperation. This letter is none of > those things. > > [ST>]Coordination, collaboration and cooperation does not necessarily mean the absence of having frank discussions on issues of representation etc. > It's bad strategy, bad politics and the only thing it will do is > provoke another SG group. > > If we do send this letter, then logically, we must also send a letter > to the biz folk asking them to abide by the same process. While we > are at it, we should insist that the govs pick folk in the same way! > [ST>]I do not follow your logic. We are concerned about civil society representation and ensuring that there is a wide dimension and breadth of representation from civil society as discussions and dialogue on the issues have consistently shown. If ever there was a time to raise this, it is now. Even if our issues are sidelined, it is on record that we raised the issues. We are not fighting people or personalities but addressing issues which are of concern to us as it impacts on the how "our voices" are heard. > > We learned of the CS process 2 days ago, and while I think it was well > done, I hardly think it should be held up as a model of openness and > transparency (since we only learned of it after it had finished). > > The bottom line is that they aren't going to change their minds about > who they pick, no matter how much we hold our breath and stomp our > feet! > > [ST>]The issue is not so much about them changing their minds about who they pick as it is about "principle". > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm > starting > > a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that > > outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat > pane > > on the right hand side. > > > > -- > > > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > > necessary. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 acm.org Sat Mar 16 00:16:55 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:16:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> Hi, I do not support sending a letter. If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. avri On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. > > -- > 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 Sat Mar 16 00:26:54 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:26:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not support sending a letter. > > If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not > see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we > would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select > candidates. > > [ST>] You raise legitimate concerns and ordinarily this would hold true but for the fact that selection can prejudice the selection of "technical people" who do not necessarily fall within their current terms of reference and by extension marginalises the participation of technical people from within civil society. > I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I > know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated > as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to > comment on their process or criteria. > > > avri > > > > On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm > starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a > letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat > pane on the right hand side. > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 16 01:32:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:02:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> Message-ID: <725E1B01-E7D3-4122-AFB4-23554027EBF8@hserus.net> I agree with Avri - and also with McTim in that this is a needless quarrel. --srs (iPad) On 16-Mar-2013, at 9:46, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not support sending a letter. > > If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. > > I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. > > avri > > > > On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >> >> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 16 01:37:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:07:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> Message-ID: <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> That brings up an interesting question. How many technical people in civil society do we currently have here? [never mind wider and narrower ranges of experience] Nick Ashton-Hart, McTim, Jeremy, me .. I can think of maybe a handful more. Add people with a dual technical / policy background (Bill Drake, George Sadowsky ..). Many of us identify with civil society because it is a common cause [for the most part]. There appears to be a much larger number of caucus members that are public policy people, political scientists, economists, grassroots activists .. not very many of whom have hands on technical experience. And there appear to be sharp ideological differences between at least some of these people versus the technical community - which McTim pointed out. --srs (iPad) On 16-Mar-2013, at 9:56, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not support sending a letter. >> >> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. > [ST>] You raise legitimate concerns and ordinarily this would hold true but for the fact that selection can prejudice the selection of "technical people" who do not necessarily fall within their current terms of reference and by extension marginalises the participation of technical people from within civil society. > > >> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. > >> avri >> >> >> >> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >> > >> > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >> > >> > -- >> > Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> > Senior Policy Officer >> > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> > >> > >> > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> > >> > >> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> > >> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 16 03:15:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:45:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> Message-ID: <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not support sending a letter. > > If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. > > I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. Avri Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... */I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions /**/from them./* This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. parminder > > avri > > > > On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >> >> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >> >> -- >> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 16 03:18:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:48:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not support sending a letter. >> >> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >> >> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. > > Avri > > Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send > out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an > annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered > for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC > should have nothing to say? > > Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership > CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing > to say? > > > This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor > conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a > common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the > process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other > public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing > grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. > > > When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic > community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society > group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they > have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear > this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, > and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as > IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, > and what all are its purposes etc...... > > */I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed > through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for > selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no > accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or > cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related > questions /**/from them./* > > This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the > substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic > communities'. > > > parminder > > >> avri >> >> >> >> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>> >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>> >>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 16 03:24:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:54:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9A4D84B0-3815-4C3A-B8F4-3D81E8B045C6@hserus.net> Why do you think they are mutually exclusive, or that she can't be both at the same time? If you get a guest researcher post at a university and continue at it4change you would describe yourself as a civil society NGO member and an academic. --srs (iPad) On 16-Mar-2013, at 12:48, parminder wrote: > > Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not support sending a letter. >>> >>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>> >>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >> >> Avri >> >> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? >> >> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? >> >> >> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >> >> >> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >> >> I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. >> >> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>> >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>> >>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> >>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 16 03:35:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:05:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514420B0.10903@itforchange.net> On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself > as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how > do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW > refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him > yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a > good discussion. BTW, as my email yesterday to McTim makes it obvious, I myself accept overlaps between tech community and civil society. But I want you hear about your own self identification and views on this subject... > > parminder > > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not support sending a letter. >>> >>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>> >>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >> >> Avri >> >> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send >> out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an >> annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered >> for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC >> should have nothing to say? >> >> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership >> CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing >> to say? >> >> >> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor >> conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a >> common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in >> the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other >> public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing >> grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >> >> >> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and >> academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil >> society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying >> that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked >> to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society >> really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I >> think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think >> civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >> >> */I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed >> through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for >> selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no >> accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can >> or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related >> questions /**/from them./* >> >> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the >> substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic >> communities'. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>> >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>> >>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Mar 16 04:17:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:17:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130316091702.51257e85@quill.bollow.ch> Am Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:05:43 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm > starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted > a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have > expressed: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat > pane on the right hand side. Thanks, Jeremy, for moving this discussion forward by means of a concrete proposal. My immediate thoughts are that I'd strongly prefer to keep the following three aspects separate: 1) Whether a very big part of the academic community was excluded by how the "technical and academic community" focal point interpreted the phrase "technical and academic community". 2) Whether it is good and appropriate to have a separate selection process (or selection processes) for "technical and academic community" representatives, and who such a selection process (or selection processes) should be primarily accountable to. (With "primarily accountable" I mean the specific accountability system that should be in place or should be put in place, so that the general accountability of all governance processes to the general public will only need to be activated if that specific accountability system fails to function appropriately.) 3) General concerns of good process, transparency and accountability in selecting stakeholder group representatives. I think that any letter we send at this stage should focus on aspect 1. Regarding point 3, I strongly feel that our (the civil society) process was not very good either. Running a formal NomCom and then pretty much throwing away the result is *not* something that we can hold up as a good example if we want to have any credibility. So issue 3 needs to be addressed, but in a much more humble manner. And I think that it's good to treat it separately, because it's both less urgent and a more difficult topic. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Mar 16 06:06:34 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:06:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi On Mar 16, 2013, at 6:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That brings up an interesting question. > > How many technical people in civil society do we currently have here? [never mind wider and narrower ranges of experience] > > Nick Ashton-Hart, McTim, Jeremy, me .. I can think of maybe a handful more. Add people with a dual technical / policy background (Bill Drake, George Sadowsky ..). FWIW I've contributed nothing to 'technically building the net', and my having been an ISOC member since the 90s or being involved in ICANN now probably translates into a 0% likelihood that I'd ever be considered for a TC 'slot' either. On the other hand, the former is true of many folks that'd be considered TC for this and other purposes. It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense and and inevitably a bit insulting to academics who are deemed (usually by non-academics, as it happens) to be not worthy. If we wanted to write a letter to someone, I'd send it to the UN and ask them to kindly cease and desist from using the fabricated term, "technical and academic community," anywhere. In contrast, I agree with those who don't see what is to be gained by sending this particular letter. Constance and other ISOCers are on this list and will have already seen it, so spending cycles tweaking the words seems a bit pointless. Dialogue that starts on an adversarial note is unlikely to go far. Potentially more useful would be cross-SG discussion on baseline coordination/information sharing expectations in those situations where we have to work together. Right now inter-species communication tends to be based on personal relationships and trust among subsets of each group. Years of people chatting at dinners and saying 'gee, we really ought to work together more effectively' have never led to real efforts to make that happen. I don't know if this can change, but I doubt that this letter would put us on that path. Best, 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 06:06:52 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:06:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] EFF: National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules In-Reply-To: <5143BC30.4040701@eff.org> References: <5143BBA1.8000107@eff.org> <5143BC30.4040701@eff.org> Message-ID: This is an excellent win and we look forward to hearing about the Appeal following the "Stay". Thanks Katitza. On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release > > For Immediate Release: Friday, March 15, 2013 > > Contact: > > Matt Zimmerman > Senior Staff Attorney > Electronic Frontier Foundation > mattz at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x127 > > Cindy Cohn > Legal Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > cindy at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office), +1 415 307-2148 (cell) > > Kurt Opsahl > Senior Staff Attorney > Electronic Frontier Foundation > kurt at eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x106 > > National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal > Judge Rules > > Court Finds NSL Statutes Violate First Amendment and > Separation of Powers > > San Francisco - A federal district court judge in San > Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) > provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The > decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of > an unnamed telecommunications company represented by the > Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). > > In the ruling publicly released today, Judge Susan Illston > ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop > issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this > or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 > days to allow the government to appeal. > > "We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal > constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," said EFF > Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "The government's > gags have truncated the public debate on these > controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward > to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience." > > The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf > of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative > letters -- on its own authority and without court approval > -- to telecommunications companies demanding information > about their customers. The controversial provisions also > permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from > revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that > a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying > either their customers or the public. The limited judicial > review provisions essentially write the courts out of the > process. > > In today's ruling, the court held that the gag order > provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and > that the review procedures violate separation of powers. > Because those provisions were not separable from the rest > of the statute, the court declared the entire statute > unconstitutional. In addressing the concerns of the > service provider, the court noted: "Petitioner was adamant > about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it > received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing > public debate." > > "The First Amendment prevents the government from silencing > people and stopping them from criticizing its use of > executive surveillance power," said EFF Legal Director > Cindy Cohn. "The NSL statute has long been a concern of > many Americans, and this small step should help restore > balance between liberty and security." > > EFF first brought this challenge on behalf of its client in > May of 2011. > > For the full order: > https://www.eff.org/document/**nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 > > For more on this case: > https://www.eff.org/cases/re-**matter-2011-national-security-**letter > > For this release: > https://www.eff.org/press/**releases/national-security-** > letters-are-unconstitutional-**federal-judge-rules > > About EFF > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading > organization protecting civil liberties in the digital > world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight > illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital > innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms > we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of > technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. > Find out more athttps://www.eff.org. > > > -end- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 16 07:35:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:05:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> On Saturday 16 March 2013 03:36 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 6:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> That brings up an interesting question. >> >> How many technical people in civil society do we currently have here? [never mind wider and narrower ranges of experience] >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart, McTim, Jeremy, me .. I can think of maybe a handful more. Add people with a dual technical / policy background (Bill Drake, George Sadowsky ..). > FWIW I've contributed nothing to 'technically building the net', and my having been an ISOC member since the 90s or being involved in ICANN now probably translates into a 0% likelihood that I'd ever be considered for a TC 'slot' either. On the other hand, the former is true of many folks that'd be considered TC for this and other purposes. So you seem to agree that ISOC is using a wrong definition for 'technical community', what to say of 'technical and academic' community. How can we allow a group to use a wrong definition to determine the composition of an important public body. If it is not about such things that a civil society group will raise question about, what else? > > It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and boundaries, Yes, it will be great. And WG on IGF improvement clearly asks for it. And MAG should be helping WG IGF recs implementing it. > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. BTW remember, para 35 of Tunis Agenda is clear that if it is ICANN etc reps that you are talking about here, they are covered in International organisations doing tech standards and policy (TA, sec 35 e). > and and inevitably a bit insulting to academics who are deemed (usually by non-academics, as it happens) to be not worthy. If we wanted to write a letter to someone, I'd send it to the UN and ask them to kindly cease and desist from using the fabricated term, "technical and academic community," anywhere. As said, I dont consider it fabricated. > > In contrast, I agree with those who don't see what is to be gained by sending this particular letter. Constance and other ISOCers are on this list and will have already seen it, so spending cycles tweaking the words seems a bit pointless. Dialogue that starts on an adversarial note is unlikely to go far. Potentially more useful would be cross-SG discussion on baseline coordination/information sharing expectations in those situations where we have to work together. Right now inter-species communication tends to be based on personal relationships and trust among subsets of each group. Years of people chatting at dinners and saying 'gee, we really ought to work together more effectively' have never led to real efforts to make that happen. I don't know if this can change, but I doubt that this letter would put us on that path. Does the logic to keep low so that good relations can be kept extend also to dealing say with developing country govs. As to who is an ally and with whom to work together varies greatly depending on the issues involved, right. ISOC resisted creation of the IGF, cil society (CS) and developing countries wanted it. ISOC resisted discussion of CIRs at the IGF, CS and developing countires wanted it. And as late as last May at the CSTD, ISOC was against creating any kind (yes any kind, even WGIG kind) of WG on Enhanced Cooperation, while much of the civil society and developing countries wanted it. So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. parminder > Best, > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 08:08:35 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:08:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:18 AM, parminder wrote: > > Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a > member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you > define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer > this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. I didn't refuse actually. I think perhaps you are just unable to grasp (or accept) my perspective on this. I have always held that the Tech community processes are a model of CS behaviour. I could even be considered part of the biz SG, since I have worked for a dot-com and an ISP in the past. For the purposes of this list however, any one who subscribes to the IGC charter is de facto CS, no? -- 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 cveraq at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 08:44:02 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:44:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> BG on Technical mean? BG on Policy mean? El 16/03/2013, a las 5:06, William Drake escribió: > Hi > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 6:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> That brings up an interesting question. >> >> How many technical people in civil society do we currently have here? [never mind wider and narrower ranges of experience] >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart, McTim, Jeremy, me .. I can think of maybe a handful more. Add people with a dual technical / policy background (Bill Drake, George Sadowsky ..). > > FWIW I've contributed nothing to 'technically building the net', and my having been an ISOC member since the 90s or being involved in ICANN now probably translates into a 0% likelihood that I'd ever be considered for a TC 'slot' either. On the other hand, the former is true of many folks that'd be considered TC for this and other purposes. > > It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense and and inevitably a bit insulting to academics who are deemed (usually by non-academics, as it happens) to be not worthy. If we wanted to write a letter to someone, I'd send it to the UN and ask them to kindly cease and desist from using the fabricated term, "technical and academic community," anywhere. > > In contrast, I agree with those who don't see what is to be gained by sending this particular letter. Constance and other ISOCers are on this list and will have already seen it, so spending cycles tweaking the words seems a bit pointless. Dialogue that starts on an adversarial note is unlikely to go far. Potentially more useful would be cross-SG discussion on baseline coordination/information sharing expectations in those situations where we have to work together. Right now inter-species communication tends to be based on personal relationships and trust among subsets of each group. Years of people chatting at dinners and saying 'gee, we really ought to work together more effectively' have never led to real efforts to make that happen. I don't know if this can change, but I doubt that this letter would put us on that path. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Mar 16 09:42:18 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:42:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transparency - Might a disclosure statement/process be worthwhile Message-ID: <69F81117-1165-407C-A12F-31D9CA90880C@privaterra.org> As this caucus gets more involved into appointing persons I worry that significant conflicts of interest might not be disclosed. We should develop a code of best practices in regards to transparency and disclosure requirements. Once that is done, we could setup a wiki with contact details and/or use an existing one like - icannwiki.com - to not only post a detailed bio, but a statements of interest that clearly discloses possible areas of conflict. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Mar 16 10:35:46 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:35:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am self-identifying as a member of the CS community, the technical community, the registry community, the ISOC community, the ICANN community, the IGF community, and whatever other communities that I may think of. Most importantly I am a member of the larger community of people interested in having a say in how the Internet works and is governed. I am part of the multi-stakeholder community. I don't agree with the letter. It seems to me the result will be to put up barriers between communities rather than build bridges linking them. It is obvious that there is no consensus on this letter as it is. There is no consensus if there should even be a letter. At the very least this letter should not be labelled as being from any community other than those people who sign the letter. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 11:10:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:10:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <067901ce2258$69df2060$3d9d6120$@gmail.com> Kerry and all, Even in a "multistakeholder community" there need to be rules. Those rules need to transparent; those administering the rules need to be accountable; and their enforcement of the rules needs to be even handed otherwise they have no legitimacy beyond their own positional authority and brute naked power (through for example, their control over the distribution of favours, positions, unaccountable benefits etc.). In the absence of those rules and that accountability and transparency you have the law of the "tribes" in Bill Drake's highly apposite phrasing. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC I am self-identifying as a member of the CS community, the technical community, the registry community, the ISOC community, the ICANN community, the IGF community, and whatever other communities that I may think of. Most importantly I am a member of the larger community of people interested in having a say in how the Internet works and is governed. I am part of the multi-stakeholder community. I don't agree with the letter. It seems to me the result will be to put up barriers between communities rather than build bridges linking them. It is obvious that there is no consensus on this letter as it is. There is no consensus if there should even be a letter. At the very least this letter should not be labelled as being from any community other than those people who sign the letter. 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sat Mar 16 11:12:15 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:12:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Kerry has pointed a very important issue, "lets build bridges" this is worth noting. My 5cents. Sonigitu Ekpe 'Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively' On Mar 16, 2013 3:36 PM, "Kerry Brown" wrote: > I am self-identifying as a member of the CS community, the technical > community, the registry community, the ISOC community, the ICANN community, > the IGF community, and whatever other communities that I may think of. Most > importantly I am a member of the larger community of people interested in > having a say in how the Internet works and is governed. I am part of the > multi-stakeholder community. > > I don't agree with the letter. It seems to me the result will be to put up > barriers between communities rather than build bridges linking them. It is > obvious that there is no consensus on this letter as it is. There is no > consensus if there should even be a letter. At the very least this letter > should not be labelled as being from any community other than those people > who sign the letter. > > 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 avri at acm.org Sat Mar 16 11:17:28 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:17:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> Hmm, a gotcha question. can't leave one of those unanswered or else it festers and becomes a long term deep infection. at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared (brb, need to start boiling the water) In a loose sense, yes, I consider myself a civil society person who is a technical person who does consider herself as part of the Itc sort of (-; even if srs did not - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - is my experience stale and my membership waning? is this a clue? ) And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them (but that might just be a personal hangup) Is IRTF technical community or research community? (brb, need to grind the beans - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) but lately have not had a technical gig that funded me to attend the IETF so only participate in some sessions remotely. (brb, the water is boiled.) well i do technical research on DTN. More so when I have funding than when I don't (at this point I don't, bummer it is amazing how much funding i don't have) (brb, time for second pour) my last RFC was on DTN routing but that is research ( ah, coffee, will be awake soon want to be done by then ) and i do teach a bit about internet technologies and Internet standards but that is education So, am i a member of the Itc? or a fellow traveller? or what? Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? No, I wouldn't. Of that I am sure. Why? I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. I would be volunteering to edit docs and probably would get to chair stuff. I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document and at that point, even without employment, yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point for consideration, as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC in my current circumstances. ( then gain if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist working on some grand goal with full focus not distracted by my need to use my meager talents to make a living ) But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, more than Civil society concerns, not on the periphery as I am now. so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an active Itc member for the purposes of something as critical as CSTD ECWG it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough to ask for such recognition. so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. yes, in my opinion I am CS and I am Itc I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context but i am most actively CS while I am not so active Itc so i guess the criteria, for me qua me and my identifications, ( and believing each individual for each Ig function should only get one bite of the apple ) would not feel right considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. i would feel like i was being intrusive ( unless of course, i was doing it to be transgressive ) my focus for now is the CS perspective. though i am an Itc fellow traveller. i think i am awake now. i have finished drinking my coffee now thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. cheers, avri Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs ----- ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers brb - be right back CS - Civil society CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member ID - Interent Draft Ig - Interent governance IETF - Internet engineering Task force IRTF - Internet Research Task Force Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen W3c - World Wide Web Consortium On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: > > Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. > > parminder > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not support sending a letter. >>> >>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>> >>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >>> >> >> Avri >> >> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? >> >> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? >> >> >> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >> >> >> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >> >> I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. >> >> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>> >>>> >>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> >>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main >>>> | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | >>>> www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 16 11:23:49 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:23:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <067901ce2258$69df2060$3d9d6120$@gmail.com> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> <067901ce2258$69df2060$3d9d6120$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This brings up an important point. In a multi-stakeholder model how do we deal with a community we may not agree with? I don't have an answer for the philosophical question. I do think that in this particular case, the letter, more harm than good will be done. If people want to continue with this they need consensus and I don't see consensus here and don't see a path to consensus. I'm fine if people want to send the letter. Please don't intimate that the letter comes from a community that has reached a consensus. Please send the letter as a group of individuals not speaking for any particular community. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: March-16-13 8:10 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kerry Brown > Subject: RE: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Kerry and all, > > Even in a "multistakeholder community" there need to be rules. Those rules > need to transparent; those administering the rules need to be accountable; > and their enforcement of the rules needs to be even handed otherwise they > have no legitimacy beyond their own positional authority and brute naked > power (through for example, their control over the distribution of favours, > positions, unaccountable benefits etc.). > > In the absence of those rules and that accountability and transparency you > have the law of the "tribes" in Bill Drake's highly apposite phrasing. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:36 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > I am self-identifying as a member of the CS community, the technical > community, the registry community, the ISOC community, the ICANN > community, the IGF community, and whatever other communities that I may > think of. Most importantly I am a member of the larger community of people > interested in having a say in how the Internet works and is governed. I am > part of the multi-stakeholder community. > > I don't agree with the letter. It seems to me the result will be to put up > barriers between communities rather than build bridges linking them. It is > obvious that there is no consensus on this letter as it is. There is no > consensus if there should even be a letter. At the very least this letter should > not be labelled as being from any community other than those people who > sign the letter. > > 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 psg.com Sat Mar 16 11:52:04 2013 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:52:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1BE3A3F5-9405-4A84-A43A-5F5493BD3684@psg.com> On 16 Mar 2013, at 07:35, Kerry Brown wrote: > At the very least this letter should not be labelled as being from any community other than those people who sign the letter. > > Kerry Brown i agree with this. a group of individuals can send anything they want to whoever they wish. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Mar 16 11:56:57 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:56:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 11:06:34 on Sat, 16 Mar 2013, William Drake writes >It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and >boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. >Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one >category just triples down on the problem. I hadn't really thought about this before, but do outsiders assume that the "academic" part of that stakeholder group are the people responsible for building out the Internet to Universities? eg JANET in the UK and TERENA in the Netherlands which talks about "fostering the development of Internet technology, infrastructure and services to be used by the research and education community." In other words the equivalent of the private sector ISP rather than users of the connectivity who also happen to be more interested in law than particle physics? -- 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 Sat Mar 16 15:39:27 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:39:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> ,<6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents: 1) I was also surprised Michael was told he was not part of the 'academic community.' 2) Speaking now as a founding member of ISOC..ok yeah I haven't paid my dues every year so sue me...I think the letter is a) misdirected; b) too long. 1 more cent: This is a CSTD issue; their mistake in not giving the folks defining TAC eligibility clear guidance. It seems they mistook TAC as an acronym for The Aged same old insiders boys Club. Oh well, live and learn. To summarize then, i too agree the letter to ISOC is..beside the point. I would support a short, sweet note asking CSTD for a bit more clarity before next year. best, Lee PS: Michael, no doubt there will be another 100 ways for you to contribute, if not this particular way. I would say - count your blessings : ) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In message , at 11:06:34 on Sat, 16 Mar 2013, William Drake writes >It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and >boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. >Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one >category just triples down on the problem. I hadn't really thought about this before, but do outsiders assume that the "academic" part of that stakeholder group are the people responsible for building out the Internet to Universities? eg JANET in the UK and TERENA in the Netherlands which talks about "fostering the development of Internet technology, infrastructure and services to be used by the research and education community." In other words the equivalent of the private sector ISP rather than users of the connectivity who also happen to be more interested in law than particle physics? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Mar 16 16:38:09 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:38:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <0AE798FB-13D3-479E-BDB9-B2D9833E61EA@gmail.com> <067901ce2258$69df2060$3d9d6120$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <194DDEBC-985D-40C5-A995-9FF281D50AED@post.harvard.edu> > This brings up an important point. In a multi-stakeholder model how > do we deal with a community we may not agree with? Poking out here is the much (much) bigger problem. Seen from time to time. Not really ever addressed. Though mentioned repeatedly: How does an MS world instantiate the principles of democracy? Democracy, where _everyone_ gets to have a say in their governance. All 7 billion or so folks. Not just the entirely small handful of folks who post with any regularity to an online list. Such a small percentage of the total 7B, that the zeros after the decimal point, in that percentage, stretch on for some distance before there is a non-zero entry. Those hallowed principles of democracy, that have been so hard won, in those societies where they are given even lip service, now. Until there is some satisfactory reconciling, MS is still just tribes. Apposite indeed, as Mike thanked Bill (whether he wanted it or not ...) And tribes is where it all started. With all sorts of governance outcomes, littered and documented through long history - often most highly undesirable. Before some progress was made - finally - on governance for and by the people. [And kudos to 'Avri haiku.' Such grace may yet waft us to a better place. Thanks, with appreciation.] David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 17 00:37:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:07:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> Message-ID: <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> Dear Avri There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hmm, > > a gotcha question. > can't leave one of those unanswered > or else it festers > and becomes a long term > deep infection. > > at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack > so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. > > but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared > > (brb, need to start boiling the water) > > In a loose sense, > yes, I consider myself a civil society person > who is a technical person who > does consider herself as part of the Itc > > sort of > > (-; > even if srs did not > - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - > is my experience stale and my membership waning? > is this a clue? > ) > > And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF > (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) > But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF > And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them > (but that might just be a personal hangup) > > Is IRTF technical community > or research community? > > (brb, need to grind the beans > - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) > > but lately have not had a technical gig > that funded me to attend the IETF > so only participate in some sessions remotely. > > (brb, the water is boiled.) > > well i do technical research on DTN. > More so when I have funding than when I don't > (at this point I don't, > bummer > it is amazing how much funding i don't have) > > (brb, time for second pour) > > my last RFC was on DTN routing > but that is research > > ( > ah, coffee, > will be awake soon > want to be done by then > ) > > and i do teach a bit about internet technologies > and Internet standards > but that is education > > So, am i a member of the Itc? > or a fellow traveller? > or what? > > Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? > No, I wouldn't. > Of that I am sure. > > Why? > > I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. > > If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) > I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and > even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. > I would be volunteering to edit docs > and probably would get to chair stuff. > I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. > and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document > > and at that point, even without employment, > yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point > for consideration, > as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC > in my current circumstances. > > ( > then gain > if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist > working on some grand goal with full focus > not distracted by my need to use my meager talents > to make a living > ) > > But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, > more than Civil society concerns, > not on the periphery as I am now. > > so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an > active Itc member for the purposes of > something as critical as CSTD ECWG > > it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear > but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough > to ask for such recognition. > > so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. > > yes, in my opinion > I am CS > and I am Itc > > I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities > i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context > > but i am most actively CS > while I am not so active Itc > > so i guess the criteria, > for me qua me and my identifications, > > ( > and believing each individual > for each Ig function > should only get one bite of the apple > ) > > would not feel right > considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. > i would feel like i was being intrusive > > ( > unless > of course, > i was doing it to be transgressive > ) > > my focus for now is the CS perspective. > though i am an Itc fellow traveller. > > i think i am awake now. > i have finished drinking my coffee now > thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. > > cheers, > > avri > > > Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. > > Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs > > ----- > ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers > brb - be right back > CS - Civil society > CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group > DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking > Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member > ID - Interent Draft > Ig - Interent governance > IETF - Internet engineering Task force > IRTF - Internet Research Task Force > Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity > NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group > RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. > RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen > W3c - World Wide Web Consortium > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: > >> Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >>> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not support sending a letter. >>>> >>>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>>> >>>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >>>> >>> Avri >>> >>> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? >>> >>> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? >>> >>> >>> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >>> >>> >>> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >>> >>> I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. >>> >>> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main >>>>> | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | >>>>> www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 00:41:51 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:11:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to. Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder wrote: > Dear Avri > > There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. > > On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. > > It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. > > parminder > > > > > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hmm, >> >> a gotcha question. >> can't leave one of those unanswered >> or else it festers >> and becomes a long term >> deep infection. >> >> at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack >> so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. >> >> but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared >> >> (brb, need to start boiling the water) >> >> In a loose sense, >> yes, I consider myself a civil society person >> who is a technical person who >> does consider herself as part of the Itc >> >> sort of >> >> (-; >> even if srs did not >> - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - >> is my experience stale and my membership waning? >> is this a clue? >> ) >> >> And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF >> (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) >> But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF >> And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them >> (but that might just be a personal hangup) >> >> Is IRTF technical community >> or research community? >> >> (brb, need to grind the beans >> - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) >> >> but lately have not had a technical gig >> that funded me to attend the IETF >> so only participate in some sessions remotely. >> >> (brb, the water is boiled.) >> >> well i do technical research on DTN. >> More so when I have funding than when I don't >> (at this point I don't, >> bummer >> it is amazing how much funding i don't have) >> >> (brb, time for second pour) >> >> my last RFC was on DTN routing >> but that is research >> >> ( >> ah, coffee, >> will be awake soon >> want to be done by then >> ) >> >> and i do teach a bit about internet technologies >> and Internet standards >> but that is education >> >> So, am i a member of the Itc? >> or a fellow traveller? >> or what? >> >> Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? >> No, I wouldn't. >> Of that I am sure. >> >> Why? >> >> I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. >> >> If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) >> I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and >> even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. >> I would be volunteering to edit docs >> and probably would get to chair stuff. >> I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. >> and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document >> >> and at that point, even without employment, >> yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point >> for consideration, >> as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC >> in my current circumstances. >> >> ( >> then gain >> if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist >> working on some grand goal with full focus >> not distracted by my need to use my meager talents >> to make a living >> ) >> >> But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, >> more than Civil society concerns, >> not on the periphery as I am now. >> >> so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an >> active Itc member for the purposes of >> something as critical as CSTD ECWG >> >> it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear >> but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough >> to ask for such recognition. >> >> so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. >> >> yes, in my opinion >> I am CS >> and I am Itc >> >> I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities >> i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context >> >> but i am most actively CS >> while I am not so active Itc >> >> so i guess the criteria, >> for me qua me and my identifications, >> >> ( >> and believing each individual >> for each Ig function >> should only get one bite of the apple >> ) >> >> would not feel right >> considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. >> i would feel like i was being intrusive >> >> ( >> unless >> of course, >> i was doing it to be transgressive >> ) >> >> my focus for now is the CS perspective. >> though i am an Itc fellow traveller. >> >> i think i am awake now. >> i have finished drinking my coffee now >> thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. >> >> cheers, >> >> avri >> >> >> Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. >> >> Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs >> >> ----- >> ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers >> brb - be right back >> CS - Civil society >> CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group >> DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking >> Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member >> ID - Interent Draft >> Ig - Interent governance >> IETF - Internet engineering Task force >> IRTF - Internet Research Task Force >> Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity >> NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group >> RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. >> RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen >> W3c - World Wide Web Consortium >> >> On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: >> >>> Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I do not support sending a letter. >>>>> >>>>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>>>> >>>>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >>>>> >>>> Avri >>>> >>>> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? >>>> >>>> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? >>>> >>>> >>>> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >>>> >>>> >>>> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >>>> >>>> I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. >>>> >>>> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main >>>>>> | #wcrd2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | >>>>>> www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: >>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Mar 17 01:02:56 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:02:56 +1100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> I think I could have predicted most peoples responses on this issue as the lines and allegiances are fairly well worn. But it is clear there will be no civil society consensus statement on this issue. But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each choosing their own smaller set of representatives. The many academics here may wish to respond in some way. (as may other individuals in various capacities of course) Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to. Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder wrote: Dear Avri There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hmm, a gotcha question. can't leave one of those unanswered or else it festers and becomes a long term deep infection. at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared (brb, need to start boiling the water) In a loose sense, yes, I consider myself a civil society person who is a technical person who does consider herself as part of the Itc sort of (-; even if srs did not - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - is my experience stale and my membership waning? is this a clue? ) And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them (but that might just be a personal hangup) Is IRTF technical community or research community? (brb, need to grind the beans - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) but lately have not had a technical gig that funded me to attend the IETF so only participate in some sessions remotely. (brb, the water is boiled.) well i do technical research on DTN. More so when I have funding than when I don't (at this point I don't, bummer it is amazing how much funding i don't have) (brb, time for second pour) my last RFC was on DTN routing but that is research ( ah, coffee, will be awake soon want to be done by then ) and i do teach a bit about internet technologies and Internet standards but that is education So, am i a member of the Itc? or a fellow traveller? or what? Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? No, I wouldn't. Of that I am sure. Why? I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. I would be volunteering to edit docs and probably would get to chair stuff. I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document and at that point, even without employment, yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point for consideration, as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC in my current circumstances. ( then gain if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist working on some grand goal with full focus not distracted by my need to use my meager talents to make a living ) But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, more than Civil society concerns, not on the periphery as I am now. so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an active Itc member for the purposes of something as critical as CSTD ECWG it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough to ask for such recognition. so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. yes, in my opinion I am CS and I am Itc I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context but i am most actively CS while I am not so active Itc so i guess the criteria, for me qua me and my identifications, ( and believing each individual for each Ig function should only get one bite of the apple ) would not feel right considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. i would feel like i was being intrusive ( unless of course, i was doing it to be transgressive ) my focus for now is the CS perspective. though i am an Itc fellow traveller. i think i am awake now. i have finished drinking my coffee now thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. cheers, avri Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs ----- ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers brb - be right back CS - Civil society CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member ID - Interent Draft Ig - Interent governance IETF - Internet engineering Task force IRTF - Internet Research Task Force Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen W3c - World Wide Web Consortium On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I do not support sending a letter. If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. Avri Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. parminder avri On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 01:08:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:38:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <990150C0-469C-4B14-B5FA-8E5AA210D8C6@hserus.net> I fully agree that the Academic community needs to respond if they are underrepresented or marginalized in this process. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is a broad cross section in academia with civil society - just as there's a broad cross section with the tech community and civil society, and tech community and academia (I could claim to be an academic, thanks to a guest researcher role I have at a malaysian university) :) Driving divisions in these communities by dangling a carrot of dubious taste and value [being representation in this process] strikes me as a trifle rich though. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: > I think I could have predicted most peoples responses on this issue as the lines and allegiances are fairly well worn. But it is clear there will be no civil society consensus statement on this issue. > > But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each choosing their own smaller set of representatives. The many academics here may wish to respond in some way. > > (as may other individuals in various capacities of course) > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to. > > Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder wrote: > >> Dear Avri >> >> There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. >> >> On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. >> >> It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hmm, >>> >>> a gotcha question. >>> can't leave one of those unanswered >>> or else it festers >>> and becomes a long term >>> deep infection. >>> >>> at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack >>> so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. >>> >>> but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared >>> >>> (brb, need to start boiling the water) >>> >>> In a loose sense, >>> yes, I consider myself a civil society person >>> who is a technical person who >>> does consider herself as part of the Itc >>> >>> sort of >>> >>> (-; >>> even if srs did not >>> - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - >>> is my experience stale and my membership waning? >>> is this a clue? >>> ) >>> >>> And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF >>> (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) >>> But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF >>> And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them >>> (but that might just be a personal hangup) >>> >>> Is IRTF technical community >>> or research community? >>> >>> (brb, need to grind the beans >>> - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) >>> >>> but lately have not had a technical gig >>> that funded me to attend the IETF >>> so only participate in some sessions remotely. >>> >>> (brb, the water is boiled.) >>> >>> well i do technical research on DTN. >>> More so when I have funding than when I don't >>> (at this point I don't, >>> bummer >>> it is amazing how much funding i don't have) >>> >>> (brb, time for second pour) >>> >>> my last RFC was on DTN routing >>> but that is research >>> >>> ( >>> ah, coffee, >>> will be awake soon >>> want to be done by then >>> ) >>> >>> and i do teach a bit about internet technologies >>> and Internet standards >>> but that is education >>> >>> So, am i a member of the Itc? >>> or a fellow traveller? >>> or what? >>> >>> Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? >>> No, I wouldn't. >>> Of that I am sure. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. >>> >>> If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) >>> I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and >>> even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. >>> I would be volunteering to edit docs >>> and probably would get to chair stuff. >>> I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. >>> and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document >>> >>> and at that point, even without employment, >>> yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point >>> for consideration, >>> as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC >>> in my current circumstances. >>> >>> ( >>> then gain >>> if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist >>> working on some grand goal with full focus >>> not distracted by my need to use my meager talents >>> to make a living >>> ) >>> >>> But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, >>> more than Civil society concerns, >>> not on the periphery as I am now. >>> >>> so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an >>> active Itc member for the purposes of >>> something as critical as CSTD ECWG >>> >>> it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear >>> but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough >>> to ask for such recognition. >>> >>> so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. >>> >>> yes, in my opinion >>> I am CS >>> and I am Itc >>> >>> I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities >>> i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context >>> >>> but i am most actively CS >>> while I am not so active Itc >>> >>> so i guess the criteria, >>> for me qua me and my identifications, >>> >>> ( >>> and believing each individual >>> for each Ig function >>> should only get one bite of the apple >>> ) >>> >>> would not feel right >>> considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. >>> i would feel like i was being intrusive >>> >>> ( >>> unless >>> of course, >>> i was doing it to be transgressive >>> ) >>> >>> my focus for now is the CS perspective. >>> though i am an Itc fellow traveller. >>> >>> i think i am awake now. >>> i have finished drinking my coffee now >>> thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. >>> >>> Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs >>> >>> ----- >>> ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers >>> brb - be right back >>> CS - Civil society >>> CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group >>> DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking >>> Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member >>> ID - Interent Draft >>> Ig - Interent governance >>> IETF - Internet engineering Task force >>> IRTF - Internet Research Task Force >>> Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity >>> NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group >>> RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. >>> RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen >>> W3c - World Wide Web Consortium >>> >>> On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not support sending a letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. >>>>>> >>>>> Avri >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? >>>>> >>>>> Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... >>>>> >>>>> I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. >>>>> >>>>> This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main >>>>>>> | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | >>>>>>> www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: >>>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 01:40:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:40:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <990150C0-469C-4B14-B5FA-8E5AA210D8C6@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> <990150C0-469C-4B14-B5FA-8E5AA210D8C6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <017801ce22d1$f7623200$e6269600$@gmail.com> FWIW, I base my claim to participation in the T/A stakeholder group not on the basis of "what I am" (e.g. "guest lecturer of this or that…") but rather on "what I do" and specifically within the context of (one of) the definitions provided to me by the T/A focal point i.e. "contributing to building the Internet". It is towards the latter that I built my claim (and more importantly the claim of my colleagues) to having "contributed to building the Internet" by our (Community Informatics) academic and research work in facilitating access to and use of the Internet by the widest range of possible citizens and particularly the marginalized in rural areas and LDC's and among the disabled, Indigenous people, urban poor and so on. This claim is built on the assertion that the Internet is not simply the "wires and protocols" but also its users and its uses. With the Internet evidently having reached a level of technical maturity and stability but with at least three-fourths of humanity still without Internet access or the opportunity of use, it is this latter knowledge and experience which may now be taking on particular value and significance. Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:08 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: ; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC I fully agree that the Academic community needs to respond if they are underrepresented or marginalized in this process. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is a broad cross section in academia with civil society - just as there's a broad cross section with the tech community and civil society, and tech community and academia (I could claim to be an academic, thanks to a guest researcher role I have at a malaysian university) :) Driving divisions in these communities by dangling a carrot of dubious taste and value [being representation in this process] strikes me as a trifle rich though. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: I think I could have predicted most peoples responses on this issue as the lines and allegiances are fairly well worn. But it is clear there will be no civil society consensus statement on this issue. But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each choosing their own smaller set of representatives. The many academics here may wish to respond in some way. (as may other individuals in various capacities of course) Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to. Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder wrote: Dear Avri There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hmm, a gotcha question. can't leave one of those unanswered or else it festers and becomes a long term deep infection. at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared (brb, need to start boiling the water) In a loose sense, yes, I consider myself a civil society person who is a technical person who does consider herself as part of the Itc sort of (-; even if srs did not - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - is my experience stale and my membership waning? is this a clue? ) And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them (but that might just be a personal hangup) Is IRTF technical community or research community? (brb, need to grind the beans - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) but lately have not had a technical gig that funded me to attend the IETF so only participate in some sessions remotely. (brb, the water is boiled.) well i do technical research on DTN. More so when I have funding than when I don't (at this point I don't, bummer it is amazing how much funding i don't have) (brb, time for second pour) my last RFC was on DTN routing but that is research ( ah, coffee, will be awake soon want to be done by then ) and i do teach a bit about internet technologies and Internet standards but that is education So, am i a member of the Itc? or a fellow traveller? or what? Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? No, I wouldn't. Of that I am sure. Why? I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. I would be volunteering to edit docs and probably would get to chair stuff. I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document and at that point, even without employment, yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point for consideration, as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC in my current circumstances. ( then gain if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist working on some grand goal with full focus not distracted by my need to use my meager talents to make a living ) But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, more than Civil society concerns, not on the periphery as I am now. so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an active Itc member for the purposes of something as critical as CSTD ECWG it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough to ask for such recognition. so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. yes, in my opinion I am CS and I am Itc I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context but i am most actively CS while I am not so active Itc so i guess the criteria, for me qua me and my identifications, ( and believing each individual for each Ig function should only get one bite of the apple ) would not feel right considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. i would feel like i was being intrusive ( unless of course, i was doing it to be transgressive ) my focus for now is the CS perspective. though i am an Itc fellow traveller. i think i am awake now. i have finished drinking my coffee now thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. cheers, avri Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs ----- ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers brb - be right back CS - Civil society CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member ID - Interent Draft Ig - Interent governance IETF - Internet engineering Task force IRTF - Internet Research Task Force Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen W3c - World Wide Web Consortium On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. parminder On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I do not support sending a letter. If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. Avri Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. parminder avri On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 01:51:56 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:21:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <017801ce22d1$f7623200$e6269600$@gmail.com> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> <990150C0-469C-4B14-B5FA-8E5AA210D8C6@hserus.net> <017801ce22d1$f7623200$e6269600$@gmail.com> Message-ID: That is quite cogent and well argued - and thanks. If you notice, I am NOT arguing that I am an academic. More like pointing out a substantial cross section between academia, the technical community and civil society. That comment was absolutely not aimed at you, sorry if I was not clear. --srs (iPad) On 17-Mar-2013, at 11:10, "michael gurstein" wrote: > FWIW, I base my claim to participation in the T/A stakeholder group not on the basis of "what I am" (e.g. "guest lecturer of this or that…") but rather on "what I do" and specifically within the context of (one of) the definitions provided to me by the T/A focal point i.e. "contributing to building the Internet". It is towards the latter that I built my claim (and more importantly the claim of my colleagues) to having "contributed to building the Internet" by our (Community Informatics) academic and research work in facilitating access to and use of the Internet by the widest range of possible citizens and particularly the marginalized in rural areas and LDC's and among the disabled, Indigenous people, urban poor and so on. > > This claim is built on the assertion that the Internet is not simply the "wires and protocols" but also its users and its uses. With the Internet evidently having reached a level of technical maturity and stability but with at least three-fourths of humanity still without Internet access or the opportunity of use, it is this latter knowledge and experience which may now be taking on particular value and significance. > > Mike > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:08 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > I fully agree that the Academic community needs to respond if they are underrepresented or marginalized in this process. > > This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is a broad cross section in academia with civil society - just as there's a broad cross section with the tech community and civil society, and tech community and academia (I could claim to be an academic, thanks to a guest researcher role I have at a malaysian university) :) > > Driving divisions in these communities by dangling a carrot of dubious taste and value [being representation in this process] strikes me as a trifle rich though. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I think I could have predicted most peoples responses on this issue as the lines and allegiances are fairly well worn. But it is clear there will be no civil society consensus statement on this issue. > > But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each choosing their own smaller set of representatives. The many academics here may wish to respond in some way. > > (as may other individuals in various capacities of course) > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to. > > Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder wrote: > > Dear Avri > > There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public. > > On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them. > > It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own. > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hmm, > > a gotcha question. > can't leave one of those unanswered > or else it festers > and becomes a long term > deep infection. > > at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack > so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is. > > but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared > > (brb, need to start boiling the water) > > In a loose sense, > yes, I consider myself a civil society person > who is a technical person who > does consider herself as part of the Itc > > sort of > > (-; > even if srs did not > - so perhaps I am less so than i thought - > is my experience stale and my membership waning? > is this a clue? > ) > > And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF > (a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs) > But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF > And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them > (but that might just be a personal hangup) > > Is IRTF technical community > or research community? > > (brb, need to grind the beans > - some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me) > > but lately have not had a technical gig > that funded me to attend the IETF > so only participate in some sessions remotely. > > (brb, the water is boiled.) > > well i do technical research on DTN. > More so when I have funding than when I don't > (at this point I don't, > bummer > it is amazing how much funding i don't have) > > (brb, time for second pour) > > my last RFC was on DTN routing > but that is research > > ( > ah, coffee, > will be awake soon > want to be done by then > ) > > and i do teach a bit about internet technologies > and Internet standards > but that is education > > So, am i a member of the Itc? > or a fellow traveller? > or what? > > Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot? > No, I wouldn't. > Of that I am sure. > > Why? > > I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key. > > If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?) > I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and > even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could. > I would be volunteering to edit docs > and probably would get to chair stuff. > I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun. > and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document > > and at that point, even without employment, > yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point > for consideration, > as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC > in my current circumstances. > > ( > then gain > if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist > working on some grand goal with full focus > not distracted by my need to use my meager talents > to make a living > ) > > But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns, > more than Civil society concerns, > not on the periphery as I am now. > > so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an > active Itc member for the purposes of > something as critical as CSTD ECWG > > it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear > but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough > to ask for such recognition. > > so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer. > > yes, in my opinion > I am CS > and I am Itc > > I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities > i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context > > but i am most actively CS > while I am not so active Itc > > so i guess the criteria, > for me qua me and my identifications, > > ( > and believing each individual > for each Ig function > should only get one bite of the apple > ) > > would not feel right > considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG. > i would feel like i was being intrusive > > ( > unless > of course, > i was doing it to be transgressive > ) > > my focus for now is the CS perspective. > though i am an Itc fellow traveller. > > i think i am awake now. > i have finished drinking my coffee now > thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection. > > cheers, > > avri > > > Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it. > > Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs > > ----- > ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers > brb - be right back > CS - Civil society > CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group > DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking > Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member > ID - Interent Draft > Ig - Interent governance > IETF - Internet engineering Task force > IRTF - Internet Research Task Force > Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity > NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group > RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together. > RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen > W3c - World Wide Web Consortium > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote: > > Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion. > > parminder > > On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote: > On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not support sending a letter. > > If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates. > > I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria. > > Avri > > Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say? > > Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say? > > > This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life. > > > When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc...... > > I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them. > > This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'. > > > parminder > > > avri > > > > On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed: > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter > > > You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main > | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | > www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 02:18:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:48:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> ,<6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 01:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > My 2 cents: > > 1) I was also surprised Michael was told he was not part of the 'academic community.' Lee, if you are surprised, and see it as a 'wrong', then it is a public wrong that must be publicly corrected. That is our collective responsibility. It is not a private wrong to Michael. It is about whole categories, and abiding walls of inclusion and inclusion. It is about how seats in a public body are filled. As Allen says, it is about application of principles of democracy to multistakeholderism (MSism). This is required to show that MSism is not tribal stuff, but an evolved democratic mechanism. And if IGC does not have a stake in trying to show this, that would be very disappointing from the the point of view of IGC's avowed deep theoretical and practical interest in MSism, Remember, I made my first posting on the subject seeking the attention of theoreticians and practitioners of MSism, to this important issue of relationship between democracy and Msism. Practices become norms which become principles and then laws... As the main CS body in this space we will be failing in our duty if we do not raise the important questions in a timely manner that needs to be raised, and when it needs to be raised. > 2) Speaking now as a founding member of ISOC..ok yeah I haven't paid my dues every year so sue me...I think the letter is a) misdirected; b) too long. > > 1 more cent: This is a CSTD issue; their mistake in not giving the folks defining TAC eligibility clear guidance. It seems they mistook TAC as an acronym for The Aged same old insiders boys Club. Oh well, live and learn. > > To summarize then, i too agree the letter to ISOC is..beside the point. > > I would support a short, sweet note asking CSTD for a bit more clarity before next year. Well, then lets do that. IGC writes to CSTD seeking clarification on definition of 'tech and academic communities' (the plural is used in the UN GA resolution), from a point of view of how reps from these communities can and should be be chosen for multistakeholder participation. We can background it with the fact that there has been issues especially about the 'academic communities' part of this category, which part seem to have been left entirely unaddressed in practice. To anticipate an 'issue avoiding' response of the nature they leave it to the designated focal points, we should also ask the basis on which focal points are appointed and whether they are given any kind of guidance or not. We can make the issue as a larger principles based one, and say that such clarifications are important as the practice of taking reps from other non gov stakeholders on important WGs/ committees etc is catching on, something that we are very glad to see..... and so on. parminder PS: I do however still think that ISOC having accepted the public duty of undertaking a public role - being the 'focal point' - should be answerable to public questions about its conduct/ procedures etc, and it is entirely appropriate for IGC to write to ISOC as well. > best, > > Lee > > PS: Michael, no doubt there will be another 100 ways for you to contribute, if not this particular way. I would say - count your blessings : ) > > > ________________________________________ > From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:56 AM > To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > In message, at 11:06:34 on > Sat, 16 Mar 2013, William Drake writes >> It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and >> boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. >> Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one >> category just triples down on the problem. > I hadn't really thought about this before, but do outsiders assume that > the "academic" part of that stakeholder group are the people responsible > for building out the Internet to Universities? > > eg JANET in the UK and TERENA in the Netherlands which talks about > "fostering the development of Internet technology, infrastructure and > services to be used by the research and education community." > > In other words the equivalent of the private sector ISP rather than > users of the connectivity who also happen to be more interested in law > than particle physics? > -- > Roland Perry > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 03:36:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:36:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: Call for Papers // 5th IFIP International Conference on eParticipation (IFIP ePart2013) Message-ID: <20130317083613.674085c4@quill.bollow.ch> Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:18:25 -0700 Von: Doug Schuler An: Ciresearchers Betreff: [ciresearchers] Call for Papers // 5th IFIP International Conference on eParticipation (IFIP ePart2013) Please distribute to interested people and groups… ********************* CALL FOR PAPERS ********************* 5th IFIP International Conference on eParticipation (IFIP ePart2013) 17-19 September 2013, Koblenz, Germany www.epart-conference.org (Co-located with the 12th IFIP EGOV 2013 and the major German Computer Society’s Informatik 2013) ePart aims to bring together researchers of distinct disciplines in order to present and discuss advances of eParticipation research. As the field of eParticipation is multidisciplinary in nature, ePart provides an excellent opportunity for researchers and practitioners with different disciplinary backgrounds to share and discuss current research on foundations, theories, methods, tools and innovative applications of eParticipation. ePart also provides a fruitful ground to nurture and plan future cooperation. The conference also provides an excellent platform for those who wish to learn about, or update themselves on research advances in eParticipation, understand how other groups are applying advanced tools and techniques, and exchange ideas with leading international experts in the field. ePart2013 is organized by members of IFIP Working Group 8.5 and it is supported by a multidisciplinary programme committee from all over the globe. Scope The scope of ePart 2013 covers the whole range of research in eParticipation. Its principal aim is to review research advances in both social and technological scientific domains, seeking to demonstrate new theories, concepts, methods and styles of eParticipation with the support of innovative ICT. The fifth ePart conference focuses on, but is not limited to, the following topics: • The Research landscape, directions, foundations, theories and methods • Advances in particular eParticipation areas such as: online deliberation and discourse, eConsultation, ePolling, eLegislation, eElectioneering, eCampaigning, eVoting, social networking • Advances in policy making using policy modelling, simulation, impact assessment and visualisation methods and tools • The role of Web 2.0 and social media in eParticipation research and practice • Innovative tools and technologies for various applications and areas of eParticipation • Findings from comparative analyses of eParticipation practices • Impact assessment and public value considerations of eParticipation on real world decision making • eParticipation projects: design, implementation, evaluation, quality and impact ePart is closely aligned with IFIP EGOV 2013 (www.egov-conference.org) and with the EGOV community. In 2013, both conferences are also co-located with the major German Computer Society’s Conference Informatik 2013 (www.informatik2013.de). Participants registering for one conference get admission to all co-located conferences). Submission Guidelines The conference allows for four distinct types of submissions: • Research papers (max 12 pages, published in LCNS Springer) • Ongoing research and innovative projects papers (max 8 pages, published GI LNI) • Workshops and panels on pertinent issues (2 pages) • Poster proposals (2 pages) • PhD colloquium submissions – in cooperation with eGovPoliNet (www.policy-community.eu) Completed research papers: Papers in this category deal with completed research. They should have a strong focus on scientific rigour and may be a maximum of 12 pages. Papers in this track will be peer reviewed for rigour, relevance, originality and clarity of presentation. Abstracts or incomplete papers will not be accepted. On-going research papers: These papers describe novel concepts, works-in-progress, or other ideas and issues that are not currently suitable for a completed research paper. They may be a maximum of 8 pages. Papers in this section will also be peer reviewed, but the focus is on relevance more than scientific rigour. Workshops and Panels: Proposals for workshops and panels (2 pages) should include rationale, objectives, expected outcomes, approach to audience participation. Posters: Proposals for posters (2 pages) will not be blind reviewed. Authors of accepted submissions are expected to bring their posters which will be exposed to the general audience at the welcome reception on Tuesday. PhD Colloquium Submissions: Prior to the conference (Sunday, Sep 15, 2013), a PhD student colloquium will be held jointly with EGOV 2013 and eGovPoliNet project (www.policy-community.eu) providing an international forum for doctoral students under the guidance of senior scholars for presenting their work, networking opportunities and cross-disciplinary inspiration. ePart papers must contain original material not previously published or currently submitted elsewhere. Paper submissions should be anonymous and follow the relevant templates. Submissions are only possible through the conference’s management system. As this year, ePart will be co-located with Informatik 2013 and all administrative organisation will be run through a unique team, the submission works through one unique system available athttps://www.conftool.pro/informatik2013/ in English and German. More details are provided at the conference’s website (http://www.epart-conference.org/). Important Dates Submission of papers: new deadline: 28 March 2013 Submission of workshop/panel proposals: 15 May 2013 Submissions to PhD colloquium: 15 May 2013 Notification of acceptance for papers: 30 April 2013 Notification of acceptance for workshops/panels: 30 May 2013 Camera-ready papers of completed research: 31 May 2013 Camera-ready papers of ongoing research, workshop and poster contributions to be published with abstracts in the proceedings: 15 June 2013 Publication All accepted completed research papers will be published by Springer Verlag (LNCS). Ongoing research and innovation projects papers will be published by GI LNI. Outstanding research papers from the conference might be selected for further development and publication in a special issue of a relevant journal. Conference Chairs Efthimios Tambouris, University of Macedonia, Greece Ann Macintosh, Leeds University, United Kingdom Maria Wimmer, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany The Programme Committee members are listed on the conference website under Organisation. +++++++++++++ Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple postings +++++++++++++++++++ Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Sphere Project http://www.publicsphereproject.org/ Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (project) http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (book) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11601 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 03:52:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:52:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] "civil society" (was Re: COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter...) In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130317085254.180d8fa2@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > For the purposes of this list however, any one who subscribes > to the IGC charter is de facto CS, no? I strongly disagree. The IGC charter presupposes that the term "civil society" has some meaning independent of the action of "subscribing to the IGC charter". Since (perhaps unfortunately) there is nothing in the charter that would provide information on what this meaning of the term "civil society" should be taken to be, I would suggest that the reasonable interpretations are: a) For the purposes of the IGC, there is no normative definition of what is "civil society". Everyone should personally form an opinion of what it means in their view, and act accordingly. b) For the purposes of the IGC, the meaning of the term "civil society" is to be determined by exegesis of the WGIG documents. c) For the purposes of the IGC, the meaning of the term "civil society" is to be determined by how the term was interpreted in context of the WSIS accredition processes. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 04:43:31 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:43:31 +0400 Subject: [governance] "civil society" (was Re: COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter...) In-Reply-To: <20130317085254.180d8fa2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <20130317085254.180d8fa2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: SSR: 'A civil society is a public space between the state, the market and the ordinary household, in which people can debate and tackle action'. WB: The World Bank has adopted a definition of civil society developed by a number of leading research centers: “the term civil society to refer to the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations”. CSI: Perhaps the simplest way to see civil society is as a "third sector," distinct from government and business. In this view, civil society refers essentially to the so-called "intermediary institutions" such as professional associations, religious groups, labor unions, citizen advocacy organizations, that give voice to various sectors of society and enrich public participation in democracies. We are part of the third sector in the IG ecosystem though we are not the only ones. The legal rationale to IGC's existence and CS status is its charter and its diverse membership and this list is an example of our inclusive debates. Best Fouad On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> For the purposes of this list however, any one who subscribes >> to the IGC charter is de facto CS, no? > > I strongly disagree. > > The IGC charter presupposes that the term "civil society" has some > meaning independent of the action of "subscribing to the IGC charter". > > Since (perhaps unfortunately) there is nothing in the charter that > would provide information on what this meaning of the term "civil > society" should be taken to be, I would suggest that the reasonable > interpretations are: > > a) For the purposes of the IGC, there is no normative definition of > what is "civil society". Everyone should personally form an opinion > of what it means in their view, and act accordingly. > > b) For the purposes of the IGC, the meaning of the term "civil > society" is to be determined by exegesis of the WGIG documents. > > c) For the purposes of the IGC, the meaning of the term "civil society" > is to be determined by how the term was interpreted in context of the > WSIS accredition processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bommelaer at isoc.org Sun Mar 17 05:18:28 2013 From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:18:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Dear Anriette, I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway to question the representation of the technical and academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our community. The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005. Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of multistakeholderism. Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to working with all of you in this spirit. Thank you and best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Director, Public Policy The Internet Society www.isoc.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 05:35:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:35:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: hi, It's clear that "technical and academic" is a stakeholder group in its own right, the UN GA said so: "21. Requests the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission, and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations, drawn equally from developing and developed countries;" World's moved on since Tunis, we should move on with it. Many of us have overlaps with other stakeholder groups but we choose to participate through civil society: membership of ISOC, participation in ICANN, association with the technical academic work of building the Internet (whoever said "academic" in this context might refer to the university networks that gave rise to the first Internet networks, technologies etc, is probably right, but I'd also suggest it is less relevant today), business trade associations, close ties to governments. But, we choose CS, so let's stick with it. Going to both the CS and tech communities processes to seek a positions, double dipping, seems a bit sad (we have nominated people from other groups before, but I think a bit different when it was CS members who outreached to others.) Our own procedures are far from perfect. The last NomCom processes have been far from ideal (not the function of the individual NomCom members, thanks to them for tolerating the mess.) If we have recommendations to make then make the generic. And as the "technical and academic" community has now been clearly identified as a stakeholder group, it is reasonable to ask what "academic" means to avoid confusion with CS. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Mar 17 06:07:45 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:07:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder snipping... On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. Best 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 17 06:19:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:49:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Message-ID: <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> Dear Constance, Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise but for the present, quickly, just the following two. Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would be considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community." (Constance) One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem not to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on the IGC, but on that later. Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, or even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on a stakeholder group'. Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body on some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, as an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often done such things. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil > Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on > Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the > importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build > across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this > reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. > > The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a > move underway to question the representation of the technical and > academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was > triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael > Gurstein. > > I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our > stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our > community. The names put forward were subject to considerable > discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil > Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The > criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as > with the UN. > > Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria > and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to > the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up > until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society > and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent > WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an > interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to > confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to > the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various > stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” > and question the entire process. > > The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a > separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group > and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is > understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be > discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context > was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and > individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management > of the Internet and who work within this community. This category > manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been > involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with > Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005. > > Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder > groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the > technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or > even for its representatives to be appointed by governments > contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached > to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control > upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another. This would > be the end of multistakeholderism. > > Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a > delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing > it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work > is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit, > the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open > and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the > inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are > being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of > individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance > discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). > > Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups > are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to > working with all of you in this spirit. > > Thank you and best regards, > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 07:01:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:01:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the caucus. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Constance, > > Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise but > for the present, quickly, just the following two. > > Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would be > considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the > purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: > > "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the > day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this > community." (Constance) > > One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain > this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem not > to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on the > IGC, but on that later. > > Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different > stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) > > Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, or > even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on a > stakeholder group'. > > Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body on > some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, as > an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often done > such things. > > Best regards, parminder > > > > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> >> Dear Anriette, >> >> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil Society >> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also sending >> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >> >> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway to >> question the representation of the technical and academic community in the >> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >> >> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our community. >> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with >> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >> >> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until February >> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one of >> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, I >> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, >> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >> >> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood that >> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups >> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred >> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this >> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >> since 2005. >> >> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups >> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the technical >> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor should >> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >> multistakeholderism. >> >> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its own >> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open and >> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has >> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy dialogues. >> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >> >> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups are >> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to working >> with all of you in this spirit. >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 07:07:53 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:07:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Message-ID: <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her part based on her being part of a professional email list (the editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping several of which endorsements I believe you have received. BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. Mike ----------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Hi Anriette, I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't see one for the ECWG. In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a community informatics/grassroots/end user academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm not sure. Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) Best, Mike ---------------------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Dear Michael Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. Please can you send today? Anriette ------------------------------ On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: Tks Roger, Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and particularly academics such as those on this list. Best and tks, Mike ----------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Roger Harris Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues HI Mike, Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the stance you describe. There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? Rgds Roger Dr. Roger Harris Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. http://www.rogharris.org/ Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd http://www.ebario.org/ Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ -------------------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Colleagues, The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. This Working Group is being established in response to a specific direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a very long process, but as the first such development it will be significant. The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development is required to ensure that the working group has balanced representation between Governments and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations. In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic community" to date has included only those with a specifically technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an end-user oriented research interest. I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion and I believe it especially important that someone whose academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet governance structures are being discussed. I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe that once the principle is established that technical and academic interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such participation in other Working Groups that might follow. I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with their travel being covered by their employers.) So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. With thanks, Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: 02/28/13 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 07:23:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:53:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the caucus. > > Adam Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak for IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough experience in this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you think i am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil society member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and helping make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was trying to make. Congrats.... parminder > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear Constance, >> >> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise but >> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >> >> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would be >> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >> >> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this >> community." (Constance) >> >> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem not >> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on the >> IGC, but on that later. >> >> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >> >> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, or >> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on a >> stakeholder group'. >> >> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body on >> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, as >> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often done >> such things. >> >> Best regards, parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> Dear Anriette, >>> >>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil Society >>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also sending >>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>> >>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway to >>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in the >>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>> >>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our community. >>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with >>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>> >>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until February >>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one of >>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, I >>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, >>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>> >>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood that >>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups >>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred >>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this >>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>> since 2005. >>> >>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups >>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the technical >>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor should >>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>> multistakeholderism. >>> >>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its own >>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open and >>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has >>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy dialogues. >>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>> >>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups are >>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to working >>> with all of you in this spirit. >>> >>> Thank you and best regards, >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Mar 17 07:24:25 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:24:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331727@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, would it be possible to get the original mail from Constance? ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: So 17.03.2013 12:07 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; bommelaer at isoc.org Cc: 'HASSAN Ayesha'; Roger Harris Betreff: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Ms. Bommelaer, I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her part based on her being part of a professional email list (the editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping several of which endorsements I believe you have received. BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. Mike ----------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Hi Anriette, I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements"... (I'm not sure what you mean by an application form... I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't see one for the ECWG... In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder group... My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a community informatics/grassroots/end user academic/technical/researcher perspective... in which I'm thinking I have the requisite background and experience... Also, again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm not sure... Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) Best, Mike ---------------------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Dear Michael Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. Please can you send today? Anriette ------------------------------ On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: Tks Roger, Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and particularly academics such as those on this list. Best and tks, Mike ----------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Roger Harris Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues HI Mike, Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the stance you describe. There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? Rgds Roger Dr. Roger Harris Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. http://www.rogharris.org/ Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd http://www.ebario.org/ Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ -------------------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Colleagues, The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. This Working Group is being established in response to a specific direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a very long process, but as the first such development it will be significant. The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development is required to ensure that the working group has balanced representation between Governments and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations. In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic community" to date has included only those with a specifically technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an end-user oriented research interest. I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion and I believe it especially important that someone whose academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet governance structures are being discussed. I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe that once the principle is established that technical and academic interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such participation in other Working Groups that might follow. I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with their travel being covered by their employers.) So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. With thanks, Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: 02/28/13 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 1 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Mar 17 07:27:18 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:27:18 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331727@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331728@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry I found it just now in my mailbox. Forget the mail below. w ________________________________ Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Gesendet: So 17.03.2013 12:24 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Betreff: AW: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Hi, would it be possible to get the original mail from Constance? ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: So 17.03.2013 12:07 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; bommelaer at isoc.org Cc: 'HASSAN Ayesha'; Roger Harris Betreff: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Ms. Bommelaer, I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her part based on her being part of a professional email list (the editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping several of which endorsements I believe you have received. BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. Mike ----------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Hi Anriette, I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements"... (I'm not sure what you mean by an application form... I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't see one for the ECWG... In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder group... My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a community informatics/grassroots/end user academic/technical/researcher perspective... in which I'm thinking I have the requisite background and experience... Also, again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm not sure... Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) Best, Mike ---------------------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Dear Michael Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. Please can you send today? Anriette ------------------------------ On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: Tks Roger, Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and particularly academics such as those on this list. Best and tks, Mike ----------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Roger Harris Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues HI Mike, Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the stance you describe. There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? Rgds Roger Dr. Roger Harris Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. http://www.rogharris.org/ Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd http://www.ebario.org/ Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ -------------------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Colleagues, The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. This Working Group is being established in response to a specific direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a very long process, but as the first such development it will be significant. The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development is required to ensure that the working group has balanced representation between Governments and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations. In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic community" to date has included only those with a specifically technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an end-user oriented research interest. I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion and I believe it especially important that someone whose academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet governance structures are being discussed. I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe that once the principle is established that technical and academic interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such participation in other Working Groups that might follow. I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with their travel being covered by their employers.) So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. With thanks, Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: 02/28/13 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 1 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 07:34:58 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:34:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an individual. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >> caucus. >> >> Adam > > > Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak for > IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough experience in > this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you think i > am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil society > member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC > withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and helping > make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this > particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was > trying to make. Congrats.... parminder > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Constance, >>> >>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>> but >>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>> >>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>> be >>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >>> >>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>> this >>> community." (Constance) >>> >>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>> not >>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>> the >>> IGC, but on that later. >>> >>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>> >>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>> or >>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on >>> a >>> stakeholder group'. >>> >>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body >>> on >>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, >>> as >>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>> done >>> such things. >>> >>> Best regards, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Anriette, >>>> >>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>> Society >>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>> sending >>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>> >>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway >>>> to >>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>> the >>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>> >>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>> community. >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared >>>> with >>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>> >>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>> February >>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one >>>> of >>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, >>>> I >>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>> however, >>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>> >>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood >>>> that >>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>> groups >>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>> referred >>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>> the >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>> this >>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>>> since 2005. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>> groups >>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>> technical >>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>> should >>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>> multistakeholderism. >>>> >>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its >>>> own >>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open >>>> and >>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>> has >>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>> dialogues. >>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>> >>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>> are >>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>> working >>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>> >>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mar 17 07:43:00 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 23:43:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an > individual. > > Adam > > [ST>] It is understood that when subscribers communicate and send posts or emails, they do so in their own capacity unless they otherwise mention as Constance did in her email to Anriette which was copied to the governance. > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the > >> caucus. > >> > >> Adam > > > > > > Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak > for > > IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough experience > in > > this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you > think i > > am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil > society > > member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC > > withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and helping > > make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this > > particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was > > trying to make. Congrats.... parminder > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Constance, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise > >>> but > >>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. > >>> > >>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would > >>> be > >>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the > >>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the > following: > >>> > >>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in > the > >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within > >>> this > >>> community." (Constance) > >>> > >>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to > obtain > >>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem > >>> not > >>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on > >>> the > >>> IGC, but on that later. > >>> > >>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between > different > >>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) > >>> > >>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, > >>> or > >>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack > on > >>> a > >>> stakeholder group'. > >>> > >>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN > body > >>> on > >>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process > issues, > >>> as > >>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often > >>> done > >>> such things. > >>> > >>> Best regards, parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Anriette, > >>>> > >>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil > >>>> Society > >>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced > >>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we > >>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various > >>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also > >>>> sending > >>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. > >>>> > >>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation > >>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move > underway > >>>> to > >>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in > >>>> the > >>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the > discussions > >>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. > >>>> > >>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our > >>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our > >>>> community. > >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well > as > >>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the > Business > >>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were > shared > >>>> with > >>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. > >>>> > >>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria > and > >>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the > >>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until > >>>> February > >>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as > one > >>>> of > >>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also > >>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by > the > >>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > >>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of > transparency, > >>>> I > >>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the > >>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, > >>>> however, > >>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in > >>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. > >>>> > >>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a > >>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group > and > >>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is > understood > >>>> that > >>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new > >>>> groups > >>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it > >>>> referred > >>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in > >>>> the > >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within > >>>> this > >>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other > >>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but > identified > >>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the > UN > >>>> since 2005. > >>>> > >>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder > >>>> groups > >>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the > >>>> technical > >>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its > >>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the > >>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I > >>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor > >>>> should > >>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of > >>>> multistakeholderism. > >>>> > >>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a > delicate > >>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with > its > >>>> own > >>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on > open > >>>> and > >>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society > >>>> has > >>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy > >>>> dialogues. > >>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in > arenas > >>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We > also > >>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups > in > >>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). > >>>> > >>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups > >>>> are > >>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to > >>>> working > >>>> with all of you in this spirit. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you and best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Sun Mar 17 07:43:54 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 23:43:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an >> individual. >> >> Adam >> >> [ST>] It is understood that when subscribers communicate and send posts > or emails, they do so in their own capacity unless they otherwise mention > as Constance did in her email to Anriette which was copied to the > governance. > > [ST>] Meant to say "copied to the IGC list" > >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> > >> > On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >> >> caucus. >> >> >> >> Adam >> > >> > >> > Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to >> speak for >> > IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough >> experience in >> > this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you >> think i >> > am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil >> society >> > member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC >> > withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and >> helping >> > make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this >> > particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was >> > trying to make. Congrats.... parminder >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Constance, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to >> raise >> >>> but >> >>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >> >>> >> >>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who >> would >> >>> be >> >>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for >> the >> >>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the >> following: >> >>> >> >>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >> the >> >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >> >>> this >> >>> community." (Constance) >> >>> >> >>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to >> obtain >> >>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition >> seem >> >>> not >> >>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion >> on >> >>> the >> >>> IGC, but on that later. >> >>> >> >>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between >> different >> >>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >> >>> >> >>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the >> letter, >> >>> or >> >>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack >> on >> >>> a >> >>> stakeholder group'. >> >>> >> >>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN >> body >> >>> on >> >>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process >> issues, >> >>> as >> >>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >> >>> done >> >>> such things. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Anriette, >> >>>> >> >>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >> >>>> Society >> >>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >> >>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance >> we >> >>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >> >>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >> >>>> sending >> >>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >> >>>> >> >>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced >> Cooperation >> >>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move >> underway >> >>>> to >> >>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community >> in >> >>>> the >> >>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the >> discussions >> >>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >> >>>> >> >>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >> >>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >> >>>> community. >> >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as >> well as >> >>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >> Business >> >>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were >> shared >> >>>> with >> >>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >> >>>> >> >>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria >> and >> >>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to >> the >> >>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >> >>>> February >> >>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as >> one >> >>>> of >> >>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >> >>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by >> the >> >>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >> >>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of >> transparency, >> >>>> I >> >>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >> >>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >> >>>> however, >> >>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >> >>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >> >>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group >> and >> >>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is >> understood >> >>>> that >> >>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >> >>>> groups >> >>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >> >>>> referred >> >>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >> >>>> the >> >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >> >>>> this >> >>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. >> Other >> >>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but >> identified >> >>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the >> UN >> >>>> since 2005. >> >>>> >> >>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >> >>>> groups >> >>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >> >>>> technical >> >>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for >> its >> >>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >> >>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, >> I >> >>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >> >>>> should >> >>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >> >>>> multistakeholderism. >> >>>> >> >>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a >> delicate >> >>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with >> its >> >>>> own >> >>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on >> open >> >>>> and >> >>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >> >>>> has >> >>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >> >>>> dialogues. >> >>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in >> arenas >> >>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We >> also >> >>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups >> in >> >>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >> >>>> >> >>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder >> groups >> >>>> are >> >>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >> >>>> working >> >>>> with all of you in this spirit. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thank you and best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 17 07:49:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:19:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5145ADC6.7050106@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 05:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an individual. No it is not. It did, in an informal manner, pull in those of us who have been asking questions, and supported writing a letter to ISOC. And there is certainly more than one, right. Such a 'we' is often used in civil society discussions. > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >>> caucus. >>> >>> Adam >> >> Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak for >> IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough experience in >> this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you think i >> am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil society >> member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC >> withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and helping >> make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this >> particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was >> trying to make. Congrats.... parminder >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>>> Dear Constance, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>>> but >>>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>>> >>>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>>> be >>>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >>>> >>>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>> this >>>> community." (Constance) >>>> >>>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >>>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>>> not >>>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>>> the >>>> IGC, but on that later. >>>> >>>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >>>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>>> >>>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>>> or >>>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on >>>> a >>>> stakeholder group'. >>>> >>>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body >>>> on >>>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, >>>> as >>>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>>> done >>>> such things. >>>> >>>> Best regards, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>>>> Dear Anriette, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>>> Society >>>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>>> sending >>>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>>> >>>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway >>>>> to >>>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>>> the >>>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>>> >>>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>>> community. >>>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared >>>>> with >>>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>>> >>>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>>> February >>>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one >>>>> of >>>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, >>>>> I >>>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>>> however, >>>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>>> >>>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood >>>>> that >>>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>>> groups >>>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>>> referred >>>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>>> the >>>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>>> this >>>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>>>> since 2005. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>>> groups >>>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>>> technical >>>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>>> should >>>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>>> multistakeholderism. >>>>> >>>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its >>>>> own >>>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open >>>>> and >>>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>>> has >>>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>>> dialogues. >>>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>>> >>>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>>> are >>>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>>> working >>>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Sun Mar 17 07:50:41 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:50:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Micheal, "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You have sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a different path through a different stakeholder group. Good luck to you playing the field. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Dear Ms. Bommelaer, > > > > I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my possible > "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC and thus to be > engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and "constituency > shopping". My understanding was that the nomination process within the CS > grouping was in fact, confidential. > > > > That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the relevant > correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" > in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her part > based on her being part of a professional email list (the editorial board of > the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) and to which I sent the > note below with an explanation asking for endorsement for my candidacy for > the Technical and Academic grouping several of which endorsements I believe > you have received. > > > > BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the > procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" including the > basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". > > > > I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: > > The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as > oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business > community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with > all interested individuals as well as with the UN. > > is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by some I > believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder > approach to decision making itself, due to your overall lack of formality, > accountability and transparency. > > > > I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and your > communication with others was based on misinformation whatever its source, I > believe it only in order that you reconduct your processes, this time based > on formal and transparent procedures with clearly identified and agreed upon > criteria. > > > > Mike > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM > > To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' > > Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet > issues > > > > Hi Anriette, > > > > I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements"… (I'm not sure what you mean > by an application form… I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't see one > for the ECWG… > > > > In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to Constance > as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder group… My intention > would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a community > informatics/grassroots/end user academic/technical/researcher perspective… > in which I'm thinking I have the requisite background and experience… Also, > again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. > > > > Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. She > evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm not sure… > > > > Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > ---------------------- > > > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM > > To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG > > Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet > issues > > > > Dear Michael > > > > Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. > > > > Please can you send today? > > > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------ > > On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: > > Tks Roger, > > > > Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on two > tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and "Internet > Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second track. The > decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced Cooperation" (concerning > the overall global multistakeholder governance of Internet related matters) > was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. > > > > Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private sector, and > technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by the > technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively by > Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of the > technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my intention on > that committee to ensure that Information Society issues were also being > considered. There would be some overlap of interest with the civil society > reps--but their interests would be rather more normative -- particularly > around Human Rights and normative principles. > > Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it is > likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and particularly > academics such as those on this list. > > > > Best and tks, > > > > Mike > > > > ----------------------------------- > > From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net > [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Roger > Harris > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM > > To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet > issues > > > > HI Mike, > > > > Happy to do this; you’re certainly the right person to represent the stance > you describe. > > > > There’s still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect a > slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere access to > devices, there’s a danger the technologists will drown this out. > > > > Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I’ll put my name to it. Maybe > the group could do the same; a kinda ‘petition’? > > > > Rgds > > > > Roger > > > > Dr. Roger Harris > > > > Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. > > http://www.rogharris.org/ > > > > Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in > Developing Countries > > http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc > > > > Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd > > http://www.ebario.org/ > > > > Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological > Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak > > http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net > [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of michael > gurstein > > Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM > > To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; > cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; > joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet > issues > > > > Colleagues, > > > > The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working Group > on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is to > deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and responding to > issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. > > > > As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly > emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; infrastructure, > access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression and censorship; the > economic and other uses of personal data by mega-corps like Facebook and > Google; among others. To date there are no structures in place where > discussions can be undertaken and, where necessary, decisions can be made > concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. > > > > This Working Group is being established in response to a specific direction > from the World Summit on the Information Society where all voices concerning > these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. This Group will > function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN Commission on Science > and Technology for Development. The outcome of the Working Group will be one > small, but not insignificant step in a very long process, but as the first > such development it will be significant. > > > > The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development is > required to ensure that the working group has balanced representation > between Governments and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the > private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and > intergovernmental and international organizations. > > > > In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these > processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part of the > "technical and academic community". This in itself is something of an > innovation since the formulation "technical and academic community" to date > has included only those with a specifically technical interest in Internet > infrastructure and technical operation althoughI believe this was not the > original intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs > including those with an end-user oriented research interest. > > > > I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet > academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion and I > believe it especially important that someone whose academic/research > interests are with ensuring the broadest base of digital inclusion including > among the marginalized, the rural, the indigenous, women and others be also > included and that matters concerning these latter groups be raised as these > global internet governance structures are being discussed. > > > > I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe that > once the principle is established that technical and academic interests with > respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the technical community there > will be a range of opportunities for such participation in other Working > Groups that might follow. > > > > I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as yet > unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to face > meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of multistakeholder > activities should not be surprising since for the most part the stakeholders > involved including the technical community folks are participating as part > of their normal work activities with their travel being covered by their > employers.) > > > > So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those of you > with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy by sending an > email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" community Ms. Constance > Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. > > > > Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to indicate your > academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of support for this > candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and the deadline is that > endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. > > > > Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an interest but > my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed outside of the > wider Community Informatics community at this time. > > > > With thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > > Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development > and Training (CCIRDT) > > Vancouver, BC CANADA > > > > tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 > > email: gurstein at gmail.com > > web: http://communityinformatics.net > > blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com > > twitter: #michaelgurstein > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: 02/28/13 > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 1 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Mar 17 07:53:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:53:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145ADC6.7050106@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145A7BE.1050702@itforchange.net> <5145ADC6.7050106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Not how I read it. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 05:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an >> individual. > > > No it is not. It did, in an informal manner, pull in those of us who have > been asking questions, and supported writing a letter to ISOC. And there is > certainly more than one, right. Such a 'we' is often used in civil society > discussions. > > > > > >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >>>> caucus. >>>> >>>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak >>> for >>> IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough experience >>> in >>> this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What makes you think >>> i >>> am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is great that a civil >>> society >>> member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with a representative of ISOC >>> withour your kind of over zealous protectiveness interfering, and helping >>> make a spectacle of all of us. I know that from what will follow this >>> particular exchange you may have effectively killed the dialogue I was >>> trying to make. Congrats.... parminder >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Constance, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>>>> but >>>>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>>>> >>>>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>>>> be >>>>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>>>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the >>>>> following: >>>>> >>>>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>>> the >>>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>>> this >>>>> community." (Constance) >>>>> >>>>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to >>>>> obtain >>>>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>>>> not >>>>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>>>> the >>>>> IGC, but on that later. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between >>>>> different >>>>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>>>> >>>>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>>>> or >>>>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack >>>>> on >>>>> a >>>>> stakeholder group'. >>>>> >>>>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN >>>>> body >>>>> on >>>>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process >>>>> issues, >>>>> as >>>>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>>>> done >>>>> such things. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anriette, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>>>> Society >>>>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>>>> sending >>>>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>>>> >>>>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced >>>>>> Cooperation >>>>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move >>>>>> underway >>>>>> to >>>>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>>>> the >>>>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the >>>>>> discussions >>>>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>>>> community. >>>>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >>>>>> as >>>>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >>>>>> Business >>>>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were >>>>>> shared >>>>>> with >>>>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria >>>>>> and >>>>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>>>> February >>>>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as >>>>>> one >>>>>> of >>>>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by >>>>>> the >>>>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of >>>>>> transparency, >>>>>> I >>>>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>>>> however, >>>>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group >>>>>> and >>>>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is >>>>>> understood >>>>>> that >>>>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>>>> groups >>>>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>>>> referred >>>>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>>>> the >>>>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>>>> this >>>>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but >>>>>> identified >>>>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the >>>>>> UN >>>>>> since 2005. >>>>>> >>>>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>>>> groups >>>>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>>>> technical >>>>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>>>> should >>>>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>>>> multistakeholderism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a >>>>>> delicate >>>>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with >>>>>> its >>>>>> own >>>>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on >>>>>> open >>>>>> and >>>>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>>>> has >>>>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>>>> dialogues. >>>>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in >>>>>> arenas >>>>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We >>>>>> also >>>>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups >>>>>> in >>>>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>>>> are >>>>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>>>> working >>>>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 07:55:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:55:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Message-ID: <006401ce2306$4c450250$e4cf06f0$@gmail.com> Ms. Bommelaer, Further to my earlier note. It is unclear from your note whether you passed the incorrect and damaging assertion of my alleged "double dipping" and "constituency shopping" to the Chair of the CSTD. If you have done so I must insist that you correct that information at your earliest opportunity as, whatever the outcome of the processes of which you are responsible, the final decision concerning appointment to the Working Group rests with the Chair CSTD and it would be highly prejudicial if he were to proceed in adjudicating my application amidst the others based in part on false information provided by yourself. Mike From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:08 AM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; Constance Bommelaer (bommelaer at isoc.org) Cc: 'HASSAN Ayesha'; Roger Harris Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Ms. Bommelaer, I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her part based on her being part of a professional email list (the editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping several of which endorsements I believe you have received. BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. Mike ----------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Hi Anriette, I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't see one for the ECWG. In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a community informatics/grassroots/end user academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm not sure. Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) Best, Mike ---------------------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Dear Michael Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. Please can you send today? Anriette ------------------------------ On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: Tks Roger, Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and particularly academics such as those on this list. Best and tks, Mike ----------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Roger Harris Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues HI Mike, Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the stance you describe. There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? Rgds Roger Dr. Roger Harris Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. http://www.rogharris.org/ Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd http://www.ebario.org/ Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ -------------------------------------------- From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on Internet issues Colleagues, The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. This Working Group is being established in response to a specific direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a very long process, but as the first such development it will be significant. The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development is required to ensure that the working group has balanced representation between Governments and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations. In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic community" to date has included only those with a specifically technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an end-user oriented research interest. I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion and I believe it especially important that someone whose academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet governance structures are being discussed. I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe that once the principle is established that technical and academic interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such participation in other Working Groups that might follow. I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with their travel being covered by their employers.) So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. With thanks, Mike Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT) Vancouver, BC CANADA tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 email: gurstein at gmail.com web: http://communityinformatics.net blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com twitter: #michaelgurstein No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: 02/28/13 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 08:04:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:04:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> Adam, My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are quite clear in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. Bommalaer and which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" -- academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible and usable to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who might otherwise marginalized in the process. Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet accessing or using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the technical community there would appear to be the need for additional knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to ensure that we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that basis and representing that community that I made my application. If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that I drew from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be pleased to engage with you in that substantive discussion. Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger Harris Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Hi Micheal, "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You have sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a different path through a different stakeholder group. Good luck to you playing the field. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Dear Ms. Bommelaer, > > > > I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my > possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC > and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and > "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination > process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. > > > > That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the > relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my "candidacy" > in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her > part based on her being part of a professional email list (the > editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) > and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for > endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping > several of which endorsements I believe you have received. > > > > BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the > procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" > including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria used". > > > > I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: > > The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well > as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the > Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used > were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. > > is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by > some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the > multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your > overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. > > > > I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and > your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever > its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your > processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with > clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. > > > > Mike > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM > > To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' > > Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on > Internet issues > > > > Hi Anriette, > > > > I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you > mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't > see one for the ECWG. > > > > In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to > Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder > group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a > community informatics/grassroots/end user > academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I > have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am prepared to put in the time required for this. > > > > Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. > She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm > not sure. > > > > Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > ---------------------- > > > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM > > To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG > > Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on > Internet issues > > > > Dear Michael > > > > Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. > > > > Please can you send today? > > > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------ > > On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: > > Tks Roger, > > > > Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on > two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and > "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second > track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced > Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder > governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two themes/tracks. > > > > Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private > sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by > the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively > by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of > the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my > intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues > were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest > with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more > normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. > > Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it > is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and > particularly academics such as those on this list. > > > > Best and tks, > > > > Mike > > > > ----------------------------------- > > From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net > [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of > Roger Harris > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM > > To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on > Internet issues > > > > HI Mike, > > > > Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the > stance you describe. > > > > There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect > a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere > access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. > > > > Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. > Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? > > > > Rgds > > > > Roger > > > > Dr. Roger Harris > > > > Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. > > http://www.rogharris.org/ > > > > Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in > Developing Countries > > http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc > > > > Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd > > http://www.ebario.org/ > > > > Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological > Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak > > http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net > [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of > michael gurstein > > Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM > > To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; > cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; > joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on > Internet issues > > > > Colleagues, > > > > The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is > to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and > responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the Internet. > > > > As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly > emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; > infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression > and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by > mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are > no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where > necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact on the entire world. > > > > This Working Group is being established in response to a specific > direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all > voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. > This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN > Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of > the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a > very long process, but as the first such development it will be significant. > > > > The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > is required to ensure that the working group has balanced > representation between Governments and invitees from all other > stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and > academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations. > > > > In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these > processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part > of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something > of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic > community" to date has included only those with a specifically > technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation > althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was > rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an end-user oriented research interest. > > > > I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet > academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion > and I believe it especially important that someone whose > academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of > digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the > indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters > concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet governance structures are being discussed. > > > > I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe > that once the principle is established that technical and academic > interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the > technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such > participation in other Working Groups that might follow. > > > > I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as > yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to > face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of > multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the > most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community > folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with > their travel being covered by their > employers.) > > > > So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those > of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy > by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" > community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to myself. > > > > Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to > indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of > support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and > the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March 6. > > > > Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an > interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed > outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. > > > > With thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. > > Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, > Development and Training (CCIRDT) > > Vancouver, BC CANADA > > > > tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 > > email: gurstein at gmail.com > > web: http://communityinformatics.net > > blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com > > twitter: #michaelgurstein > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: > 02/28/13 > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 1 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Mar 17 08:11:00 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:11:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Adam On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > It's clear that "technical and academic" is a stakeholder group in its > own right, the UN GA said so: So because the infinitely wise UN GA is well know to have a fine grained grasp of the internal organization, self identities, loyalties and perspectives of nongovernmental actors (?), we should accept a conflation of apples and oranges to which it probably gave a nanosecond of real thought? Why not the Business and Academic Community? After all, some academics engage in for profit ventures etc…Just as arbitrary. > > World's moved on since Tunis, we should move on with it. Well, with or against, but move > > If we have recommendations to make then make the generic. And as the > "technical and academic" community has now been clearly identified as > a stakeholder group, it is reasonable to ask what "academic" means to > avoid confusion with CS. That would be a good starting point for a letter to CSTD—what does this category mean to you? Then build on the inevitably inadequate reply to feed something up the food chain. "Academic" is an albatross around the TC's neck, it does it no good and invites contention as we're seeing. When something is blindingly inconsistent with empirical reality and is doing nobody any good, one would hope at least these conditions could lead to a correction. BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 08:20:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:20:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, give or take a day, at the time you were seeking to represent the technical and academic community in one process (CSTD enhanced cooperation), you were speaking as a representative of civil society at another related event (WSIS+10). You're the only person I know of who has tried to flip between stakeholder groups in this way. Good luck to you. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, > > My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are quite clear > in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. Bommalaer and > which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" -- > academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible and usable > to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who might > otherwise marginalized in the process. > > Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet accessing or > using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the > technical community there would appear to be the need for additional > knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to ensure that > we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that basis > and representing that community that I made my application. > > If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that I drew > from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be pleased to > engage with you in that substantive discussion. > > Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger Harris > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Hi Micheal, > > "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. > > You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You have > sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for > which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a > different path through a different stakeholder group. > Good luck to you playing the field. > > Adam > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >> >> >> >> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC >> and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and >> "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >> >> >> >> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my > "candidacy" >> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) >> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >> >> >> >> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria > used". >> >> >> >> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: >> >> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >> >> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >> >> >> >> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and >> your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever >> its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your >> processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with >> clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >> >> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >> >> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Hi Anriette, >> >> >> >> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you >> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't >> see one for the ECWG. >> >> >> >> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >> community informatics/grassroots/end user >> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am > prepared to put in the time required for this. >> >> >> >> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. >> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >> not sure. >> >> >> >> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> >> >> >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >> >> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >> >> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Dear Michael >> >> >> >> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >> >> >> >> Please can you send today? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Tks Roger, >> >> >> >> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on >> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second >> track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two > themes/tracks. >> >> >> >> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by >> the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively >> by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of >> the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my >> intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues >> were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest >> with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more >> normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. >> >> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it >> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >> particularly academics such as those on this list. >> >> >> >> Best and tks, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------- >> >> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >> Roger Harris >> >> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >> >> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >> >> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> HI Mike, >> >> >> >> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >> stance you describe. >> >> >> >> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect >> a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere >> access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. >> >> >> >> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. >> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >> >> >> >> Rgds >> >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> Dr. Roger Harris >> >> >> >> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >> >> http://www.rogharris.org/ >> >> >> >> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >> Developing Countries >> >> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >> >> >> >> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >> >> http://www.ebario.org/ >> >> >> >> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological >> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >> >> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >> michael gurstein >> >> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >> >> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >> >> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Colleagues, >> >> >> >> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is >> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the > Internet. >> >> >> >> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly >> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression >> and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by >> mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are >> no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where >> necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact > on the entire world. >> >> >> >> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. >> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN >> Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of >> the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a >> very long process, but as the first such development it will be > significant. >> >> >> >> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and >> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international > organizations. >> >> >> >> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part >> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something >> of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic >> community" to date has included only those with a specifically >> technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation >> althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was >> rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an > end-user oriented research interest. >> >> >> >> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >> academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion >> and I believe it especially important that someone whose >> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet > governance structures are being discussed. >> >> >> >> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >> >> >> >> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as >> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community >> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >> their travel being covered by their >> employers.) >> >> >> >> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to > myself. >> >> >> >> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and >> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March > 6. >> >> >> >> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed >> outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >> >> >> >> With thanks, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >> >> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >> >> Vancouver, BC CANADA >> >> >> >> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >> >> email: gurstein at gmail.com >> >> web: http://communityinformatics.net >> >> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >> >> twitter: #michaelgurstein >> >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >> 02/28/13 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 1 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 08:40:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:40:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008101ce230c$a45b9c50$ed12d4f0$@gmail.com> Adam as anyone who has followed my work knows I have for much of my career worked with colleagues towards enabling the broadest base of use and uses of the Internet and particularly by marginalized populations. I, and dare I say my colleagues and others including many in the tech community, consider that to be well within the scope of the Technical and Academic Community as my recent keynote address on this subject to the IEEE Conference on Technology and Society in Singapore would possibly attest. Alongside that and with, I believe no inconsistency, as anyone who has followed my contribution to CS and to for example the Internet Rights and Principles discussion, knows I have also long advocated that there should be a right to access and use the Internet and particularly as a support to marginalized populations. I fail to see the inconsistencies in that or the possible conflicts of interest but I'm assuming that you will enlighten us. Mike -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:21 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger Harris Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Michael, give or take a day, at the time you were seeking to represent the technical and academic community in one process (CSTD enhanced cooperation), you were speaking as a representative of civil society at another related event (WSIS+10). You're the only person I know of who has tried to flip between stakeholder groups in this way. Good luck to you. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, > > My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are quite > clear in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. > Bommalaer and which I sent as a request for endorsement to my > "stakeholder group" -- academics/researchers involved in making the > Internet accessible and usable to the widest range of global citizens > and particularly those who might otherwise marginalized in the process. > > Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet > accessing or using the Internet, even with all of the best will and > skill by the technical community there would appear to be the need for > additional knowledges and skills to those currently being made > available to ensure that we are building an Internet which is truly > for all. It is from that basis and representing that community that I made my application. > > If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that I > drew from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be > pleased to engage with you in that substantive discussion. > > Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger > Harris > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Hi Micheal, > > "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. > > You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You > have sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking > role (for which you were selected), and in a related process you > decided to try a different path through a different stakeholder group. > Good luck to you playing the field. > > Adam > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >> >> >> >> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on >> EC and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" >> and "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >> >> >> >> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning >> my > "candidacy" >> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) >> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >> >> >> >> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria > used". >> >> >> >> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: >> >> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >> >> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >> >> >> >> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision >> and your communication with others was based on misinformation >> whatever its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct >> your processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures >> with clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >> >> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >> >> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Hi Anriette, >> >> >> >> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you >> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I >> didn't see one for the ECWG. >> >> >> >> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >> community informatics/grassroots/end user >> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am > prepared to put in the time required for this. >> >> >> >> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. >> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >> not sure. >> >> >> >> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> >> >> >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >> >> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >> >> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Dear Michael >> >> >> >> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >> >> >> >> Please can you send today? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Tks Roger, >> >> >> >> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on >> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a >> second track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the >> two > themes/tracks. >> >> >> >> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented >> by the technical/academic has to date been represented almost >> exclusively by Developed Country techies with an interest in the >> maintenance of the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it >> would be my intention on that committee to ensure that Information >> Society issues were also being considered. There would be some >> overlap of interest with the civil society reps--but their interests >> would be rather more normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. >> >> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it >> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >> particularly academics such as those on this list. >> >> >> >> Best and tks, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------- >> >> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >> Roger Harris >> >> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >> >> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >> >> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> HI Mike, >> >> >> >> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >> stance you describe. >> >> >> >> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can >> detect a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more >> than mere access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. >> >> >> >> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. >> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >> >> >> >> Rgds >> >> >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> Dr. Roger Harris >> >> >> >> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >> >> http://www.rogharris.org/ >> >> >> >> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >> Developing Countries >> >> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >> >> >> >> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >> >> http://www.ebario.org/ >> >> >> >> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological >> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >> >> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >> michael gurstein >> >> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >> >> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >> >> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >> Internet issues >> >> >> >> Colleagues, >> >> >> >> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is >> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of >> the > Internet. >> >> >> >> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly >> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of >> expression and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal >> data by mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date >> there are no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken >> and, where necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters >> as they impact > on the entire world. >> >> >> >> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. >> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome >> of the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in >> a very long process, but as the first such development it will be > significant. >> >> >> >> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical >> and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international > organizations. >> >> >> >> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part >> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is >> something of an innovation since the formulation "technical and >> academic community" to date has included only those with a >> specifically technical interest in Internet infrastructure and >> technical operation althoughI believe this was not the original >> intention which was rather, to have a broad range of such inputs >> including those with an > end-user oriented research interest. >> >> >> >> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >> academics/researchers be represented in this most important >> discussion and I believe it especially important that someone whose >> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet > governance structures are being discussed. >> >> >> >> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >> >> >> >> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as >> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community >> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >> their travel being covered by their >> employers.) >> >> >> >> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy >> to > myself. >> >> >> >> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and >> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than >> March > 6. >> >> >> >> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly >> distributed outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >> >> >> >> With thanks, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >> >> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >> >> Vancouver, BC CANADA >> >> >> >> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >> >> email: gurstein at gmail.com >> >> web: http://communityinformatics.net >> >> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >> >> twitter: #michaelgurstein >> >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >> 02/28/13 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 1 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 17 08:52:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:22:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Michael, give or take a day, at the time you were seeking to represent > the technical and academic community in one process (CSTD enhanced > cooperation), you were speaking as a representative of civil society > at another related event (WSIS+10). You're the only person I know of > who has tried to flip between stakeholder groups in this way. Good > luck to you. > > Adam Adam You are getting quite personal and nasty; well, let it be like that then. So, at least one thing is established from what you say. Flipping between stakeholder groups is to be condemned, right! I will hold you to it. I will come to this a little later and try to see how so many people here have fared on this criterion. (BTW, do you remember the issue of the nomination of a certain head of an RIR - regional internet registry- by IGC, I think in fact two different heads of RIRs; and who in the IGC took what kind of positions in that discussion.) (And of course all the pious talk on this list of being inclusive and accommodating, and not talk about exclusivities, that about overlapping identities and so on......) However, on Michael’s issue ; 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others, being deliberately blind to the fact that Michael applied to the academic community part of the 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical community part. 2. There was no speaking slot for academic community at WSIS. It was either civil society or technical community or private sector. So whichever slot Michael tried would be flipping, right! And therefore you seem to believe that an academic has no right to speak at the opening panel at WSIS. 3. I also think that Michael took this thing up more to open the process for possible academic nominees on such bodies, than for himself getting a position, the chance for which in the current circumstances was never going to be huge. Less I think than he had a chance through the civil society process, which process he deliberately forsook. parminder > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Adam, >> >> My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are quite clear >> in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. Bommalaer and >> which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" -- >> academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible and usable >> to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who might >> otherwise marginalized in the process. >> >> Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet accessing or >> using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the >> technical community there would appear to be the need for additional >> knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to ensure that >> we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that basis >> and representing that community that I made my application. >> >> If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that I drew >> from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be pleased to >> engage with you in that substantive discussion. >> >> Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger Harris >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Hi Micheal, >> >> "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. >> >> You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You have >> sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for >> which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a >> different path through a different stakeholder group. >> Good luck to you playing the field. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >>> >>> >>> >>> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >>> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC >>> and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and >>> "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >>> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >>> >>> >>> >>> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >>> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my >> "candidacy" >>> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >>> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >>> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) >>> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >>> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >>> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >>> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >>> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria >> used". >>> >>> >>> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as per: >>> >>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >>> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >>> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >>> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>> >>> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >>> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >>> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >>> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and >>> your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever >>> its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your >>> processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with >>> clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >>> >>> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Anriette, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you >>> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't >>> see one for the ECWG. >>> >>> >>> >>> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >>> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >>> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >>> community informatics/grassroots/end user >>> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >>> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am >> prepared to put in the time required for this. >>> >>> >>> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. >>> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >>> not sure. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >>> >>> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >>> >>> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please can you send today? >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> Tks Roger, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on >>> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >>> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second >>> track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >>> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >>> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two >> themes/tracks. >>> >>> >>> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >>> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by >>> the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively >>> by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of >>> the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my >>> intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues >>> were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest >>> with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more >>> normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. >>> >>> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it >>> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >>> particularly academics such as those on this list. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best and tks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>> Roger Harris >>> >>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >>> >>> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>> >>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> HI Mike, >>> >>> >>> >>> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >>> stance you describe. >>> >>> >>> >>> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect >>> a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere >>> access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. >>> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >>> >>> >>> >>> Rgds >>> >>> >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Roger Harris >>> >>> >>> >>> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >>> >>> http://www.rogharris.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >>> Developing Countries >>> >>> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >>> >>> >>> >>> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >>> >>> http://www.ebario.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological >>> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >>> >>> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>> michael gurstein >>> >>> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >>> >>> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >>> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >>> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>> >>> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is >>> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >>> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the >> Internet. >>> >>> >>> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly >>> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >>> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression >>> and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by >>> mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are >>> no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where >>> necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact >> on the entire world. >>> >>> >>> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >>> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >>> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. >>> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN >>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of >>> the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a >>> very long process, but as the first such development it will be >> significant. >>> >>> >>> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >>> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >>> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >>> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and >>> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international >> organizations. >>> >>> >>> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >>> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part >>> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something >>> of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic >>> community" to date has included only those with a specifically >>> technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation >>> althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was >>> rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an >> end-user oriented research interest. >>> >>> >>> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >>> academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion >>> and I believe it especially important that someone whose >>> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >>> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >>> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >>> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet >> governance structures are being discussed. >>> >>> >>> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >>> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >>> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >>> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >>> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as >>> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >>> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >>> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >>> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community >>> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >>> their travel being covered by their >>> employers.) >>> >>> >>> >>> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >>> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >>> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >>> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to >> myself. >>> >>> >>> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >>> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >>> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and >>> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than March >> 6. >>> >>> >>> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >>> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed >>> outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >>> >>> >>> >>> With thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >>> >>> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >>> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >>> >>> Vancouver, BC CANADA >>> >>> >>> >>> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >>> >>> email: gurstein at gmail.com >>> >>> web: http://communityinformatics.net >>> >>> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >>> >>> twitter: #michaelgurstein >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >>> 02/28/13 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> 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 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 09:02:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:02:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130317140234.2763e98f@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > It's clear that "technical and academic" is a stakeholder group in its > own right, the UN GA said so: > > "21. Requests the Chair of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development to ensure that the working group on > enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments > from the five regional groups of the Commission, and invitees from > all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, > technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and > international organizations, drawn equally from developing and > developed countries;" > > World's moved on since Tunis, we should move on with it. +1 In addition, we need to evaluate whether the way that the world is changing is acceptable, and if that is not the case, we must advocate for a change of course. But even in that case, pretending that the developments since Tunis are somehow irrelevant is not a via viable path forward. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Mar 17 09:09:18 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:09:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... we are certainly in a sort of crossroads here. Now a member of the academic community says to a member of organized civil society not to speak for CS... What is the proposed solution? A huge permanent assembly which would by magic bring everyone from everywhere in a giant unconference? Frankly... fraternal regards --c.a. On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the caucus. > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Dear Constance, >> >> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise but >> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >> >> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would be >> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >> >> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this >> community." (Constance) >> >> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem not >> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on the >> IGC, but on that later. >> >> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >> >> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, or >> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on a >> stakeholder group'. >> >> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body on >> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, as >> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often done >> such things. >> >> Best regards, parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> >>> Dear Anriette, >>> >>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil Society >>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also sending >>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>> >>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway to >>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in the >>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>> >>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our community. >>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with >>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>> >>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until February >>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one of >>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, I >>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, >>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>> >>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood that >>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups >>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred >>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this >>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>> since 2005. >>> >>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups >>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the technical >>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor should >>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>> multistakeholderism. >>> >>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its own >>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open and >>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has >>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy dialogues. >>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>> >>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups are >>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to working >>> with all of you in this spirit. >>> >>> Thank you and best regards, >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Mar 17 09:31:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:31:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <20130317140234.2763e98f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <6UI3H3RJZJRRFAwy@internetpolicyagency.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1CB085@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51456027.1010503@itforchange.net> <20130317140234.2763e98f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0E7108AC-B7CE-4F1A-A068-1DC9B18F5D13@ciroap.org> On 17/03/2013, at 9:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In addition, we need to evaluate whether the way that the world is > changing is acceptable, and if that is not the case, we must advocate > for a change of course. But even in that case, pretending that the > developments since Tunis are somehow irrelevant is not a via viable > path forward. I think we abandon the touchstone of Tunis at our peril. Sure, the world has moved on since then - there is no way on God's green earth that we would get as good of an outcome now (not that it was that good to begin with). So we should be very careful to allow Tunis to be put up for grabs now (and certainly not by the chance wording of a public servant who knows less about the topic than we do). We have precious little enough to use to hold the UN accountable, and I would rather not play fast and loose with what we do have. For one thing, the enhanced cooperation process hangs on a very thin thread. Neither am I going to allow "oh, we have moved on since Tunis" to be used as an excuse for detracting from the full effect of the IGF's mandate. Having said that, by all means we can suggest improvements for WSIS+10, which could include a re-examination of the IGF's mandate and of the stakeholder groupings. For me though, the latter is very clear. Governments are a stakeholder group because they provide formal legitimacy. The private sector is a stakeholder group because they represent the value of markets. Civil society is a stakeholder because its role is to represent all viewpoints that the state and markets don't. The value of the cross-cutting technical and academic communities is more instrumental - their inputs have value, but they are not conceptually as intrinsic to the constitution of a global democratic polity as the other three groups, whose involvement is indispensable. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 09:51:21 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:51:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Michael, give or take a day, at the time you were seeking to represent >> the technical and academic community in one process (CSTD enhanced >> cooperation), you were speaking as a representative of civil society >> at another related event (WSIS+10). You're the only person I know of >> who has tried to flip between stakeholder groups in this way. Good >> luck to you. >> >> Adam > > > Adam > > You are getting quite personal and nasty; well, let it be like that then. > So, at least one thing is established from what you say. Flipping between > stakeholder groups is to be condemned, right! I will hold you to it. Super. Try not to manipulate words, situations, etc. Thanks. > I will > come to this a little later and try to see how so many people here have > fared on this criterion. (BTW, do you remember the issue of the nomination > of a certain head of an RIR - regional internet registry- by IGC, I think > in fact two different heads of RIRs; and who in the IGC took what kind of > positions in that discussion.) And what was your reaction to that? But I do remember it, as I kind of mentioned it in email a few hours ago. Entirely different situation though. And looking at what I wrote "Going to both the CS and tech communities processes to seek a positions, double dipping, seems a bit sad (we have nominated people from other groups before, but I think a bit different when it was CS members who outreached to others.)" see 2 things. First, I should have been more careful. Apologies. I meant mixing and matching, flipping from one group to another as situations arose, not that he applied for the CSTD WG through both. MAG and WSIS was IGC, ISOC for CSTD (you'd think WSIS+10 would be where infomatics would be the best fit with tech and academic, but, whatever). Second, I think a good thing to consider cross-stakeholder support. > (And of course all the pious talk on this > list of being inclusive and accommodating, and not talk about exclusivities, > that about overlapping identities and so on......) > Weren't you attacking people recently? > However, on Michael’s issue ; > > 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others, being deliberately blind to > the fact that > Michael applied to the academic community part of the > 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical community part. > but didn't he just said it was both, that IEEE reference? Seems you are confused. Adam > 2. There was no speaking slot for academic community at WSIS. It was either > civil society or technical community or private sector. So whichever slot > Michael tried would be flipping, right! And therefore you seem to believe > that an academic has no right to speak at the opening panel at WSIS. > > 3. I also think that Michael took this thing up more to open the process for > possible academic nominees on such bodies, than for himself getting a > position, the chance for which in the current circumstances was never going > to be huge. Less I think than he had a chance through the civil society > process, which process he deliberately forsook. > > parminder > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> Adam, >>> >>> My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are quite >>> clear >>> in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. Bommalaer and >>> which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" -- >>> academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible and >>> usable >>> to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who might >>> otherwise marginalized in the process. >>> >>> Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet accessing >>> or >>> using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the >>> technical community there would appear to be the need for additional >>> knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to ensure >>> that >>> we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that basis >>> and representing that community that I made my application. >>> >>> If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that I >>> drew >>> from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be pleased to >>> engage with you in that substantive discussion. >>> >>> Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger Harris >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>> >>> Hi Micheal, >>> >>> "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. >>> >>> You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You have >>> sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for >>> which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a >>> different path through a different stakeholder group. >>> Good luck to you playing the field. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >>>> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC >>>> and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and >>>> "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >>>> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >>>> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen concerning my >>> >>> "candidacy" >>>> >>>> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >>>> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >>>> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) >>>> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >>>> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >>>> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >>>> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >>>> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria >>> >>> used". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends as >>>> per: >>>> >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >>>> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >>>> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >>>> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>> >>>> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >>>> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >>>> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >>>> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and >>>> your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever >>>> its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your >>>> processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with >>>> clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Anriette, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you >>>> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't >>>> see one for the ECWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >>>> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >>>> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >>>> community informatics/grassroots/end user >>>> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >>>> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am >>> >>> prepared to put in the time required for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. >>>> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >>>> not sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >>>> >>>> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please can you send today? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>> Tks Roger, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on >>>> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >>>> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second >>>> track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >>>> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >>>> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two >>> >>> themes/tracks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >>>> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by >>>> the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively >>>> by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of >>>> the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my >>>> intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues >>>> were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest >>>> with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more >>>> normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative principles. >>>> >>>> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it >>>> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >>>> particularly academics such as those on this list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best and tks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------- >>>> >>>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Roger Harris >>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >>>> >>>> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HI Mike, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >>>> stance you describe. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect >>>> a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere >>>> access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown this >>>> out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. >>>> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Roger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Roger Harris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >>>> >>>> http://www.rogharris.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >>>> Developing Countries >>>> >>>> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >>>> >>>> http://www.ebario.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological >>>> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >>>> >>>> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>>> michael gurstein >>>> >>>> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >>>> >>>> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >>>> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >>>> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> >>>> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Colleagues, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is >>>> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >>>> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the >>> >>> Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly >>>> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >>>> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression >>>> and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by >>>> mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are >>>> no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where >>>> necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they impact >>> >>> on the entire world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >>>> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >>>> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. >>>> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN >>>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of >>>> the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a >>>> very long process, but as the first such development it will be >>> >>> significant. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >>>> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >>>> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >>>> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and >>>> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international >>> >>> organizations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >>>> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part >>>> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something >>>> of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic >>>> community" to date has included only those with a specifically >>>> technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation >>>> althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was >>>> rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an >>> >>> end-user oriented research interest. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >>>> academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion >>>> and I believe it especially important that someone whose >>>> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >>>> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >>>> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >>>> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet >>> >>> governance structures are being discussed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >>>> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >>>> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >>>> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >>>> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as >>>> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >>>> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >>>> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >>>> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community >>>> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >>>> their travel being covered by their >>>> employers.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >>>> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >>>> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >>>> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a copy to >>> >>> myself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >>>> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >>>> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and >>>> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than >>>> March >>> >>> 6. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >>>> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed >>>> outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >>>> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >>>> >>>> Vancouver, BC CANADA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >>>> >>>> email: gurstein at gmail.com >>>> >>>> web: http://communityinformatics.net >>>> >>>> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> twitter: #michaelgurstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> >>>> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >>>> 02/28/13 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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 1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 09:51:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:51:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130317145155.7948df5c@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. > > You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You > have sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking > role (for which you were selected), and in a related process you > decided to try a different path through a different stakeholder group. What is else is a non-technical academic supposed to do, when in some fora the only path that is available to non-technical academics is to seek nomination under the "civil society" banner, while in other fora, representatives of academic communities are directed to an entirely separate path for seeking nomination??? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 09:52:00 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:52:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, are you talking about something I've written? Because I'm not saying anything of the kind. Adam On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hmmm... we are certainly in a sort of crossroads here. Now a member of the > academic community says to a member of organized civil society not to speak > for CS... > > What is the proposed solution? A huge permanent assembly which would by > magic bring everyone from everywhere in a giant unconference? > > Frankly... > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >> caucus. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Constance, >>> >>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>> but >>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>> >>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>> be >>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >>> >>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>> this >>> community." (Constance) >>> >>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>> not >>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>> the >>> IGC, but on that later. >>> >>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>> >>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>> or >>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on >>> a >>> stakeholder group'. >>> >>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body >>> on >>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, >>> as >>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>> done >>> such things. >>> >>> Best regards, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Anriette, >>>> >>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>> Society >>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>> sending >>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>> >>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway >>>> to >>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>> the >>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>> >>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>> community. >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared >>>> with >>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>> >>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>> February >>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one >>>> of >>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, >>>> I >>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>> however, >>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>> >>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood >>>> that >>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>> groups >>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>> referred >>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>> the >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>> this >>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>>> since 2005. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>> groups >>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>> technical >>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>> should >>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>> multistakeholderism. >>>> >>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its >>>> own >>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open >>>> and >>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>> has >>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>> dialogues. >>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>> >>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>> are >>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>> working >>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>> >>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 17 09:52:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:22:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 06:22 PM, parminder wrote: > > However, on Michael’s issue ; > > 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others, being deliberately > blind to the fact that Michael applied to the academic community part > of the 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical > community part. And of course, Adam, you want to take *no note* of the fact that the criteria Constance gave us which ISOC applies to chose reps from 'technical and academic community' which is, and I quote "it referred to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community" /*simply and completely removes any academic representation, altogether.*/ So no academic rep at all in the 'tech and academic community'!!! Does it not sound strange? I bet it would to anyone, other than, perhaps, those just too committed to certain causes and interests.... So, without ceremony ISOC simply sweeps away all and any possibility of due academic representation that WSIS and UN GA asked for, and we all are expected to keep quite because ISOC are our friends . That sounds very very strange to me. The ISOC criteria in fact also removes all the technical people who may not be managing "day-to-day operational management of the Internet " in the employment of a few organisations that we all know. And I know so many technical people who should be considered in 'technical community' and whose expertise should be used by UN bodies, but who do not work for an ICANN or ISOC, IETF or RIRs. (Including those who have never been in civil society, so no 'constituency shopping' excuse can be used in their case) This cannot be a one sided redefinition of a category which fills as many places as the whole of civil society does in policy related bodies. And those who want to debate this issue cannot be reduced to some kind of mean petulant people who have nothing better to do than raise controversies. This is an important and central issue of multistakeholderism, ad we have a right to discuss it here and communicate our views on the matter. MSism will the biggest loser if we refuse to construct the needed norms, principles and rules for it. And here we refuse to even discuss them. Selection of those who can be considered as reps for different stakeholders is one of the most central issues here. parminder > > 2. There was no speaking slot for academic community at WSIS. It was > either civil society or technical community or private sector. So > whichever slot Michael tried would be flipping, right! And therefore > you seem to believe that an academic has no right to speak at the > opening panel at WSIS. > > 3. I also think that Michael took this thing up more to open the > process for possible academic nominees on such bodies, than for > himself getting a position, the chance for which in the current > circumstances was never going to be huge. Less I think than he had a > chance through the civil society process, which process he > deliberately forsook. > > parminder > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> Adam, >>> >>> My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are >>> quite clear >>> in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. >>> Bommalaer and >>> which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" -- >>> academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible and >>> usable >>> to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who might >>> otherwise marginalized in the process. >>> >>> Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet >>> accessing or >>> using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the >>> technical community there would appear to be the need for additional >>> knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to >>> ensure that >>> we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that >>> basis >>> and representing that community that I made my application. >>> >>> If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that >>> I drew >>> from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be >>> pleased to >>> engage with you in that substantive discussion. >>> >>> Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >>> Peake >>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger >>> Harris >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>> >>> Hi Micheal, >>> >>> "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. >>> >>> You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You >>> have >>> sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role (for >>> which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to try a >>> different path through a different stakeholder group. >>> Good luck to you playing the field. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein >>> wrote: >>>> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >>>> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG on EC >>>> and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and >>>> "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >>>> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >>>> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen >>>> concerning my >>> "candidacy" >>>> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >>>> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >>>> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit) >>>> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >>>> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >>>> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >>>> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >>>> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the criteria >>> used". >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends >>>> as per: >>>> >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well >>>> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >>>> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >>>> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>> >>>> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >>>> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >>>> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >>>> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision and >>>> your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever >>>> its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your >>>> processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with >>>> clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Anriette, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what you >>>> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I didn't >>>> see one for the ECWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >>>> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >>>> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >>>> community informatics/grassroots/end user >>>> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >>>> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am >>> prepared to put in the time required for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll see. >>>> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >>>> not sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >>>> >>>> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please can you send today? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>> Tks Roger, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were on >>>> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >>>> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a second >>>> track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >>>> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >>>> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the two >>> themes/tracks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >>>> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) represented by >>>> the technical/academic has to date been represented almost exclusively >>>> by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of >>>> the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my >>>> intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society issues >>>> were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest >>>> with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather more >>>> normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position it >>>> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >>>> particularly academics such as those on this list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best and tks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------- >>>> >>>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Roger Harris >>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >>>> >>>> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HI Mike, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >>>> stance you describe. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can detect >>>> a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere >>>> access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown >>>> this out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to it. >>>> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Roger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Roger Harris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >>>> >>>> http://www.rogharris.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >>>> Developing Countries >>>> >>>> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >>>> >>>> http://www.ebario.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and Technological >>>> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >>>> >>>> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>>> michael gurstein >>>> >>>> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >>>> >>>> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >>>> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >>>> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>>> >>>> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>>> Internet issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Colleagues, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group is >>>> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >>>> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of the >>> Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been rapidly >>>> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >>>> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of expression >>>> and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by >>>> mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there are >>>> no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, where >>>> necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they >>>> impact >>> on the entire world. >>>> >>>> >>>> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >>>> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >>>> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be heard. >>>> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of the UN >>>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of >>>> the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a >>>> very long process, but as the first such development it will be >>> significant. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >>>> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >>>> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >>>> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and >>>> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. >>>> >>>> >>>> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >>>> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as part >>>> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is something >>>> of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic >>>> community" to date has included only those with a specifically >>>> technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical operation >>>> althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was >>>> rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an >>> end-user oriented research interest. >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >>>> academics/researchers be represented in this most important discussion >>>> and I believe it especially important that someone whose >>>> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >>>> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >>>> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >>>> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet >>> governance structures are being discussed. >>>> >>>> >>>> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >>>> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >>>> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >>>> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >>>> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is as >>>> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >>>> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >>>> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >>>> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical community >>>> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >>>> their travel being covered by their >>>> employers.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >>>> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >>>> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >>>> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a >>>> copy to >>> myself. >>>> >>>> >>>> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >>>> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >>>> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly and >>>> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later than >>>> March >>> 6. >>>> >>>> >>>> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >>>> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly distributed >>>> outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >>>> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >>>> >>>> Vancouver, BC CANADA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >>>> >>>> email: gurstein at gmail.com >>>> >>>> web: http://communityinformatics.net >>>> >>>> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> twitter: #michaelgurstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> >>>> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >>>> 02/28/13 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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 1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 17 09:56:11 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:56:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <029502DD-E1DB-4D3D-B0C5-030837E2DCC1@post.harvard.edu> Ah, once again, the fundamental dynamics of tribe-based polities rear their ultimately confounding head ... Let's see. How many of us have overlapping memberships in different affinity groups? Affinity groups - one form for the present-day outcropping of tribes. Hmmm ... Well, that would be all of us. We all have, often orthogonal but also sometimes overlapping, memberships in work, family, avocation, sports, maybe religion, the list goes on ... And how many of us - occasionally - may rise to leadership positions in more than one of those affinity groups? Well, that happens less frequently. But it happens. The human social animal comes innately equipped this way. As noted in the earlier post, democracy - so very hard won - stepped beyond this structure. One person gets one vote. Governance by and for all of us. Then representation - in groups any larger than a smallish group - enshrines the power of that one vote. Not the ultimately irresolvable conflicts, as tribes go at it. And so- very-much worse, the detritus of history - often horrific - as the exercise of, the struggle for, power can lead to the most truly ugly outcomes. That struggle is also built into the human genome. And those politics of power are all too evidently in play, in the arenas at stake here. (And all too often often ignored or downplayed, in the dialog - also.) No - most decidedly, no - not all of us are "attached to" the "multistakeholder principle." Quite the contrary, some of us look with fear and consternation on another human proclivity - that is, to mimic and follow trends and fads, most unfortunately sometimes like lemmings, with little or no thought to the underlying realities. In the case here, even to proselytize for a so-called multistakeholderism. Governance structures do most decidedly need to refine, especially as new ideas ('technology') have enabled ever-widening circles - of affinity. And it is a natural outcome - from our genome - that we who had no say earlier will revel in newfound power. Including me, too. But woe betide us if we revert - from whatever impetus - back to tribal rudiments. Democracy has just been too very hard won. We can do better. We must. We can use our other built-in talents to get to a better place. (And no, I did not, earlier, point at a minority within the caucus - only at the overall (very) most extreme minority that is the caucus in the larger 'democracy.') David On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Michael, give or take a day, at the time you were seeking to represent > the technical and academic community in one process (CSTD enhanced > cooperation), you were speaking as a representative of civil society > at another related event (WSIS+10). You're the only person I know of > who has tried to flip between stakeholder groups in this way. Good > luck to you. > > Adam > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Adam, >> >> My reasons for making the application through the T/A group are >> quite clear >> in the note I appended to the message I sent earlier to Ms. >> Bommalaer and >> which I sent as a request for endorsement to my "stakeholder group" >> -- >> academics/researchers involved in making the Internet accessible >> and usable >> to the widest range of global citizens and particularly those who >> might >> otherwise marginalized in the process. >> >> Since there are some 4-5 billion people in the would not as yet >> accessing or >> using the Internet, even with all of the best will and skill by the >> technical community there would appear to be the need for additional >> knowledges and skills to those currently being made available to >> ensure that >> we are building an Internet which is truly for all. It is from that >> basis >> and representing that community that I made my application. >> >> If you disagree with what I wrote there or with the conclusion that >> I drew >> from that concerning applying through the T/A group I would be >> pleased to >> engage with you in that substantive discussion. >> >> Beyond that I believe there is nothing to discuss. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 4:51 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bommelaer at isoc.org; HASSAN Ayesha; Roger >> Harris >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Hi Micheal, >> >> "double dipping" my terminology, not Constance. >> >> You are an active member of a civil society stakeholder group. You >> have >> sought nominations through CS to the MAG, to WSIS+10 speaking role >> (for >> which you were selected), and in a related process you decided to >> try a >> different path through a different stakeholder group. >> Good luck to you playing the field. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein >> >> wrote: >>> Dear Ms. Bommelaer, >>> >>> >>> >>> I have no idea how you might have informed yourself concerning my >>> possible "nomination" through the CS focal point for the CSTD WG >>> on EC >>> and thus to be engaged in, in your terminology "double dipping" and >>> "constituency shopping". My understanding was that the nomination >>> process within the CS grouping was in fact, confidential. >>> >>> >>> >>> That being by the by, I'm attaching below what I believe to be the >>> relevant correspondence between myself and Ms. Esterhuysen >>> concerning my >> "candidacy" >>> in this matter. I believe there to have been some confusion on her >>> part based on her being part of a professional email list (the >>> editorial board of the Journal of Community Informatics which I >>> edit) >>> and to which I sent the note below with an explanation asking for >>> endorsement for my candidacy for the Technical and Academic grouping >>> several of which endorsements I believe you have received. >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW, I (and now I believe, we) still await a clear exposition of the >>> procedures followed in the determination of your "nominations" >>> including the basis on which you determined and applied "the >>> criteria >> used". >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm afraid that a quiet chat between you and a few of your friends >>> as per: >>> >>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as >>> well >>> as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the >>> Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used >>> were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>> >>> is hardly sufficient for a matter of this significance and could by >>> some I believe, even be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the >>> multistakeholder approach to decision making itself, due to your >>> overall lack of formality, accountability and transparency. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe an apology is in order. Also, I believe if your decision >>> and >>> your communication with others was based on misinformation whatever >>> its source, I believe it only in order that you reconduct your >>> processes, this time based on formal and transparent procedures with >>> clearly identified and agreed upon criteria. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:21 AM >>> >>> To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'emilar at APC.ORG' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Anriette, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll attach my bio, resume and "endorsements". (I'm not sure what >>> you >>> mean by an application form. I filled one out for the MAG but I >>> didn't >>> see one for the ECWG. >>> >>> >>> >>> In any case FWIW I've sent my application and the endorsements to >>> Constance as I'm applying for the "technical/academic" stakeholder >>> group. My intention would be to speak to/from the EC issues from a >>> community informatics/grassroots/end user >>> academic/technical/researcher perspective. in which I'm thinking I >>> have the requisite background and experience. Also, again FWIW I am >> prepared to put in the time required for this. >>> >>> >>> >>> Constance et al seem a bit perplexed by my application but we'll >>> see. >>> She evidently has agreed to "accept" it, what happens after that I'm >>> not sure. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, an "endorsement" from you folks would be excellent :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:29 PM >>> >>> To: Michael Gurstein; emilar at APC.ORG >>> >>> Subject: Re: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> Really sorry.. but we are missing your application form. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please can you send today? >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> On 04/03/2013 09:45, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> Tks Roger, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, you are correct. The issues coming out of WSIS 2003/2005 were >>> on >>> two tracks--"Information Society" (ICT4D and DD for example) and >>> "Internet Governance" (domain name management for example) on a >>> second >>> track. The decision to pursue questions concerning "Enhanced >>> Cooperation" (concerning the overall global multistakeholder >>> governance of Internet related matters) was meant to integrate the >>> two >> themes/tracks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of the four "stakeholders" -- government, civil society, private >>> sector, and technical/academic -- the interests (stake) >>> represented by >>> the technical/academic has to date been represented almost >>> exclusively >>> by Developed Country techies with an interest in the maintenance of >>> the technical infrastructure (the second track) and it would be my >>> intention on that committee to ensure that Information Society >>> issues >>> were also being considered. There would be some overlap of interest >>> with the civil society reps--but their interests would be rather >>> more >>> normative -- particularly around Human Rights and normative >>> principles. >>> >>> Given the specific wording and mode of selection for this position >>> it >>> is likely that individual endorsments might be of most value and >>> particularly academics such as those on this list. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best and tks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>> Roger Harris >>> >>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 AM >>> >>> To: joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>> >>> Subject: RE: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> HI Mike, >>> >>> >>> >>> Happy to do this; you're certainly the right person to represent the >>> stance you describe. >>> >>> >>> >>> There's still talk around of digital divides and although I can >>> detect >>> a slight drift towards the notion that they represent more than mere >>> access to devices, there's a danger the technologists will drown >>> this out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Suggest you draft the appropriate wording and I'll put my name to >>> it. >>> Maybe the group could do the same; a kinda 'petition'? >>> >>> >>> >>> Rgds >>> >>> >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Roger Harris >>> >>> >>> >>> Consultant in ICTs for poverty reduction and rural development. >>> >>> http://www.rogharris.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Co-Editor-in-Chief; The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in >>> Developing Countries >>> >>> http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc >>> >>> >>> >>> Director Business Development; eBario Sdn Bhd >>> >>> http://www.ebario.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Visiting Professor, Institute of Social Informatics and >>> Technological >>> Innovation - Universiti Malaysia Sarawak >>> >>> http://www.isiti.unimas.my/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> From: joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net >>> [mailto:joci-editorial-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of >>> michael gurstein >>> >>> Sent: 01 March, 2013 3:07 PM >>> >>> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; >>> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; ci-research-sa at vcn.bc.ca; >>> joci-editorial at vancouvercommunity.net >>> >>> Subject: [JoCI] Request for Endorsement for UN Working Group on >>> Internet issues >>> >>> >>> >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> The UN General Assembly is in the process of establishing a "Working >>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation". The function of this Working Group >>> is >>> to deliberate on an institutional framework for identifying and >>> responding to issues concerning the global impact and operation of >>> the >> Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> As you know a wide range of Internet related issues have been >>> rapidly >>> emerging concerning privacy and surveillance on the net; >>> infrastructure, access and cost of Internet use; freedom of >>> expression >>> and censorship; the economic and other uses of personal data by >>> mega-corps like Facebook and Google; among others. To date there >>> are >>> no structures in place where discussions can be undertaken and, >>> where >>> necessary, decisions can be made concerning these matters as they >>> impact >> on the entire world. >>> >>> >>> >>> This Working Group is being established in response to a specific >>> direction from the World Summit on the Information Society where all >>> voices concerning these matters were given an opportunity to be >>> heard. >>> This Group will function under the convenorship of the Chair of >>> the UN >>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The outcome of >>> the Working Group will be one small, but not insignificant step in a >>> very long process, but as the first such development it will be >> significant. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for >>> Development >>> is required to ensure that the working group has balanced >>> representation between Governments and invitees from all other >>> stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical >>> and >>> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international >> organizations. >>> >>> >>> >>> In consultation with colleagues much more knowledgeable about these >>> processes than myself, I have decided to forward my candidacy as >>> part >>> of the "technical and academic community". This in itself is >>> something >>> of an innovation since the formulation "technical and academic >>> community" to date has included only those with a specifically >>> technical interest in Internet infrastructure and technical >>> operation >>> althoughI believe this was not the original intention which was >>> rather, to have a broad range of such inputs including those with an >> end-user oriented research interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that it is important that "non-techie" Internet >>> academics/researchers be represented in this most important >>> discussion >>> and I believe it especially important that someone whose >>> academic/research interests are with ensuring the broadest base of >>> digital inclusion including among the marginalized, the rural, the >>> indigenous, women and others be also included and that matters >>> concerning these latter groups be raised as these global internet >> governance structures are being discussed. >>> >>> >>> >>> I see my role here as being something of a placeholder as I believe >>> that once the principle is established that technical and academic >>> interests with respect to the Internet must go beyond simply the >>> technical community there will be a range of opportunities for such >>> participation in other Working Groups that might follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> I should perhaps add that this participation is unfunded and it is >>> as >>> yet unclear whether participation will be virtual or through face to >>> face meetings. (The absence of funding for these kinds of >>> multistakeholder activities should not be surprising since for the >>> most part the stakeholders involved including the technical >>> community >>> folks are participating as part of their normal work activities with >>> their travel being covered by their >>> employers.) >>> >>> >>> >>> So colleagues, with this note I'm asking you, and particularly those >>> of you with academic or research positions to "endorse" my candidacy >>> by sending an email to the focal point for the "technial/academic" >>> community Ms. Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org and with a >>> copy to >> myself. >>> >>> >>> >>> Your note need not be elaborate but it would be most useful to >>> indicate your academic title(s) as an indication of the breadth of >>> support for this candidacy. This matter has come up quite quickly >>> and >>> the deadline is that endorsements should be forwarded no later >>> than March >> 6. >>> >>> >>> >>> Feel free to pass this along to others you think might have an >>> interest but my preference is to not have this too broadly >>> distributed >>> outside of the wider Community Informatics community at this time. >>> >>> >>> >>> With thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. >>> >>> Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, >>> Development and Training (CCIRDT) >>> >>> Vancouver, BC CANADA >>> >>> >>> >>> tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624 >>> >>> email: gurstein at gmail.com >>> >>> web: http://communityinformatics.net >>> >>> blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com >>> >>> twitter: #michaelgurstein >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5639 - Release Date: >>> 02/28/13 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> 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 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 11:13:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:13:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Message-ID: <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> [I'm writing this email in my role as a co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, i.e. "with coordinator hat on".] Constance Bommelaer wrote: > For this reason I am also sending a copy [..] to the Civil Society > group. Thank you for that; this is very much appreciated. > Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria > and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals > to the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up > until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil > Society and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the > recent WSIS+10 meeting. Let me first point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong when an academic becomes a highly respected member of a civil society group, and when some consider him a leader (civil society is so diverse that no-one can reasonable expect to be considered a leader of civil society as a whole). Having been involved in the selection of the civil society nominees for the recent WSIS+10 meeting, I would like to further comment on what you have written above. Mr. Gurstein is a non-technical academic. At the recent WSIS+10 meeting, there was no process available for non-technical academics to apply for nomination for a speaking slot on the basis of representing a community of non-technical academics. The only way in which he could therefore be considered and potentially accepted was as a civil society nominee. By contrast, in the UN General Assembly resolution that contains the decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation (A/RES/67/195), “technical and academic communities” is recognized as an explicit stakeholder category, and consequently the Chair of the CSTD has appointed a corresponding “focal point”. I personally thought this to be a very positive development, and an appropriate recognition of the important work of the various academic communities. > I do believe, however, that unsuccessful > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency > shopping” Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular situation. > and question the entire process. By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed a human rights violation. > The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a > separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group > and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is > understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be > discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the > context was clear and it referred to the community of organizations > and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community. I find it absolutely astounding that you have chosen, in this roundabout way via the Tunis Agenda, to interpret the term “technical and academic communities” of the UN General Assembly resolution that contains the decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation (A/RES/67/195), to mean “community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community”. Please note in particular the plural “communities” in the UN General Assembly resolution and the singular in your interpretation. Greetings, Norbert Bollow one of the coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 11:55:29 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:55:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0154303B-AC38-4EAB-BECA-07C38D0E723F@acm.org> On 17 Mar 2013, at 00:37, parminder wrote: > This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. You asked me a question. i perceived it as threatening. I answered it in my own way. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 12:15:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 06:22 PM, parminder wrote: > > > However, on Michael’s issue ; > > 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others, being deliberately blind to > the fact that Michael applied to the academic community part of the > 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical community part. > > > > And of course, Adam, you want to take *no note* of the fact that the > criteria Constance gave us which ISOC applies to chose reps from 'technical > and academic community' which is, and I quote > > > "it referred to the community of organizations and individuals who are > involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who > work within this community" > > simply and completely removes any academic representation, altogether. No, it doesn't. Are you forgetting all the REN folks perhaps? All the Academics who take part i IETF activities/RIR activities? (For the record the European RIR came together by a group of academics, mostly physicists, and was supported by TERENA for several years). So no > academic rep at all in the 'tech and academic community'!!! Does it not > sound strange? It would if it were true, but since it is untrue.. I bet it would to anyone, other than, perhaps, those just too > committed to certain causes and interests.... So, without ceremony ISOC > simply sweeps away all and any possibility of due academic representation > that WSIS and UN GA asked for, and we all are expected to keep quite because > ISOC are our friends . That sounds very very strange to me. sounds strange to me as well, mostly because it is not true. > > The ISOC criteria in fact also removes all the technical people who may not > be managing "day-to-day operational management of the Internet " in the > employment of a few organisations that we all know. And I know so many > technical people who should be considered in 'technical community' and whose > expertise should be used by UN bodies, but who do not work for an ICANN or > ISOC, IETF or RIRs. (Including those who have never been in civil society, > so no 'constituency shopping' excuse can be used in their case) These bodies (and others) have spent Millions of USD/Euros on "Enhanced cooperation over the last few years. Having staff dedicated to the UN/ITU processes, opening up inter-governmental WGs in their own processes, giving Fellowships to their meetings to government types, supporting the IGF financially, etc, etc. The T&A folk are the only ones committed to EC in this way. I suggest we let their experts use their considerable expertise in EC, and not whinge because we don't like they way they select these experts! > > This cannot be a one sided redefinition of a category which fills as many > places as the whole of civil society does in policy related bodies. And > those who want to debate this issue cannot be reduced to some kind of mean > petulant people who have nothing better to do than raise controversies. You seem to have done this all by yourself to speak frankly! This > is an important and central issue of multistakeholderism, ad we have a right > to discuss it here and communicate our views on the matter. Happy to discuss, not happy that we have communicated a non-consensus position to ISOC, as Norbert has done down thread. If I had the bandwidth I would write up a recall petition as his accusation of "a human rights violation" is WAY beyond the pale! > > MSism will the biggest loser if we refuse to construct the needed norms, > principles and rules for it. These were constructed and have been practiced for decades by the T&A folks. >And here we refuse to even discuss them. We are discussing them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Mar 17 12:22:51 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:22:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> <0154303B-AC38-4EAB-BECA-07C38D0E723F@acm.org> Message-ID: <886C7873-75C1-4383-9321-AB5D0F317970@acm.org> On 17 Mar 2013, at 12:07, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Maybe more education on the topic. ok > > I thought we are protecting Msism for sustainability rather than interests and egoism. > how do you understand Msism? and its relation to this issue? thanks, avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 12:23:13 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:23:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Great response from one of the IGC Coordinator. Thank you, lets take it from there. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Mar 17, 2013 4:15 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > [I'm writing this email in my role as a co-coordinator of the Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus, i.e. "with coordinator hat on".] > > Constance Bommelaer wrote: > > > For this reason I am also sending a copy [..] to the Civil Society > > group. > > Thank you for that; this is very much appreciated. > > > Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria > > and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals > > to the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up > > until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil > > Society and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the > > recent WSIS+10 meeting. > > Let me first point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong when an > academic becomes a highly respected member of a civil society group, > and when some consider him a leader (civil society is so diverse that > no-one can reasonable expect to be considered a leader of civil > society as a whole). > > Having been involved in the selection of the civil society nominees for > the recent WSIS+10 meeting, I would like to further comment on what > you have written above. > > Mr. Gurstein is a non-technical academic. At the recent WSIS+10 meeting, > there was no process available for non-technical academics to apply for > nomination for a speaking slot on the basis of representing a community > of non-technical academics. > > The only way in which he could therefore be considered and potentially > accepted was as a civil society nominee. > > By contrast, in the UN General Assembly resolution that contains the > decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (A/RES/67/195), “technical and academic communities” is recognized as > an explicit stakeholder category, and consequently the Chair of the > CSTD has appointed a corresponding “focal point”. > > I personally thought this to be a very positive development, and an > appropriate recognition of the important work of the various academic > communities. > > > I do believe, however, that unsuccessful > > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency > > shopping” > > Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. > > He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the > one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular > situation. > > > and question the entire process. > > By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed a > human rights violation. > > > The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a > > separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group > > and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is > > understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be > > discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the > > context was clear and it referred to the community of organizations > > and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > > management of the Internet and who work within this community. > > I find it absolutely astounding that you have chosen, in this > roundabout way via the Tunis Agenda, to interpret the term “technical > and academic communities” of the UN General Assembly resolution that > contains the decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced > Cooperation (A/RES/67/195), to mean “community of organizations > and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community”. > > Please note in particular the plural “communities” in the UN General > Assembly resolution and the singular in your interpretation. > > Greetings, > Norbert Bollow > one of the coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 12:24:59 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:24:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: ¿Qué pasa? Miembros de la comunidad peleando por puestos claves… Como quedamos ante los ojos del mundo… ¿El NomCom fue solamente de pantalla? Para tapar apetitos angurrientos. Llamo a una reflexión urgente de todos los miembros de la lista, a pronunciarse al respecto, porque estamos quedando como personas que solamente perseguimos fines propios y no dirigidos hacia la sociedad que más lo necesita *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/17 Carlos A. Afonso > Hmmm... we are certainly in a sort of crossroads here. Now a member of the > academic community says to a member of organized civil society not to speak > for CS... > > What is the proposed solution? A huge permanent assembly which would by > magic bring everyone from everywhere in a giant unconference? > > Frankly... > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >> caucus. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Constance, >>> >>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>> but >>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>> >>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>> be >>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >>> >>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>> this >>> community." (Constance) >>> >>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>> not >>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>> the >>> IGC, but on that later. >>> >>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>> >>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>> or >>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on >>> a >>> stakeholder group'. >>> >>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN >>> body on >>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, >>> as >>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>> done >>> such things. >>> >>> Best regards, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Anriette, >>>> >>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>> Society >>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>> sending >>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>> >>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move >>>> underway to >>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>> the >>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>> >>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>> community. >>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared >>>> with >>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>> >>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>> February >>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as >>>> one of >>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of >>>> transparency, I >>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>> however, >>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>> >>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood >>>> that >>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>> groups >>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>> referred >>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>> the >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>> this >>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>>> since 2005. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>> groups >>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>> technical >>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>> should >>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>> multistakeholderism. >>>> >>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with >>>> its own >>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open >>>> and >>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>> has >>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>> dialogues. >>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>> >>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>> are >>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>> working >>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>> >>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 17 12:27:39 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:27:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, "Duties of Coordinators The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below. The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such as list management, web site management or support of other tools. These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be appealed to the appeals team." Coordinators are named coordinators for a reason. They are not representatives, they do not speak on members' behalf (unless to express agreed positions.) I suggest you withdraw the statement below. If you think it's important, then follow procedures and seek the caucus' support before sending personal statements with your coordinator "hat" on. Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [I'm writing this email in my role as a co-coordinator of the Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus, i.e. "with coordinator hat on".] > > Constance Bommelaer wrote: > >> For this reason I am also sending a copy [..] to the Civil Society >> group. > > Thank you for that; this is very much appreciated. > >> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria >> and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals >> to the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up >> until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil >> Society and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the >> recent WSIS+10 meeting. > > Let me first point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong when an > academic becomes a highly respected member of a civil society group, > and when some consider him a leader (civil society is so diverse that > no-one can reasonable expect to be considered a leader of civil > society as a whole). > > Having been involved in the selection of the civil society nominees for > the recent WSIS+10 meeting, I would like to further comment on what > you have written above. > > Mr. Gurstein is a non-technical academic. At the recent WSIS+10 meeting, > there was no process available for non-technical academics to apply for > nomination for a speaking slot on the basis of representing a community > of non-technical academics. > > The only way in which he could therefore be considered and potentially > accepted was as a civil society nominee. > > By contrast, in the UN General Assembly resolution that contains the > decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (A/RES/67/195), “technical and academic communities” is recognized as > an explicit stakeholder category, and consequently the Chair of the > CSTD has appointed a corresponding “focal point”. > > I personally thought this to be a very positive development, and an > appropriate recognition of the important work of the various academic > communities. > >> I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency >> shopping” > > Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. > > He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the > one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular > situation. > >> and question the entire process. > > By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed a > human rights violation. > >> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group >> and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is >> understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be >> discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the >> context was clear and it referred to the community of organizations >> and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational >> management of the Internet and who work within this community. > > I find it absolutely astounding that you have chosen, in this > roundabout way via the Tunis Agenda, to interpret the term “technical > and academic communities” of the UN General Assembly resolution that > contains the decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced > Cooperation (A/RES/67/195), to mean “community of organizations > and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community”. > > Please note in particular the plural “communities” in the UN General > Assembly resolution and the singular in your interpretation. > > Greetings, > Norbert Bollow > one of the coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Mar 17 12:49:01 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:49:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5145989C.6010208@itforchange.net> <5145C07E.6020909@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5145F3FD.1050804@cafonso.ca> Wow, sorry, must have been another Adam Peake :) --c.a. >> On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >>> caucus. >>> >>> Adam On 03/17/2013 10:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Carlos, are you talking about something I've written? Because I'm > not saying anything of the kind. > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hmmm... we are certainly in a sort of crossroads here. Now a member of the >> academic community says to a member of organized civil society not to speak >> for CS... >> >> What is the proposed solution? A huge permanent assembly which would by >> magic bring everyone from everywhere in a giant unconference? >> >> Frankly... >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the >>> caucus. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Constance, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise >>>> but >>>> for the present, quickly, just the following two. >>>> >>>> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would >>>> be >>>> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the >>>> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following: >>>> >>>> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the >>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>> this >>>> community." (Constance) >>>> >>>> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain >>>> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem >>>> not >>>> to match the understanding of most people in our current discussion on >>>> the >>>> IGC, but on that later. >>>> >>>> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different >>>> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance) >>>> >>>> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, >>>> or >>>> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on >>>> a >>>> stakeholder group'. >>>> >>>> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body >>>> on >>>> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, >>>> as >>>> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often >>>> done >>>> such things. >>>> >>>> Best regards, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Anriette, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>>>> Society >>>>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we >>>>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various >>>>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also >>>>> sending >>>>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >>>>> >>>>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway >>>>> to >>>>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in >>>>> the >>>>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions >>>>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein. >>>>> >>>>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>>>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>>>> community. >>>>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as >>>>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business >>>>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared >>>>> with >>>>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN. >>>>> >>>>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and >>>>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the >>>>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until >>>>> February >>>>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one >>>>> of >>>>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also >>>>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the >>>>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, >>>>> I >>>>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the >>>>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, >>>>> however, >>>>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in >>>>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process. >>>>> >>>>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>>>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and >>>>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood >>>>> that >>>>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new >>>>> groups >>>>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it >>>>> referred >>>>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in >>>>> the >>>>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within >>>>> this >>>>> community. This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other >>>>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified >>>>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN >>>>> since 2005. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>>>> groups >>>>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>>>> technical >>>>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its >>>>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the >>>>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I >>>>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor >>>>> should >>>>> any group be beholden to another. This would be the end of >>>>> multistakeholderism. >>>>> >>>>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate >>>>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its >>>>> own >>>>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open >>>>> and >>>>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society >>>>> has >>>>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy >>>>> dialogues. >>>>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas >>>>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also >>>>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in >>>>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>>>> >>>>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>>>> are >>>>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>>>> working >>>>> with all of you in this spirit. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 12:50:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:50:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Great response from one of the IGC Coordinator. It's a terrible response. Norbert was NOT asked to write (with his IGC hat on) to anyone, yet he did AND he accused another CS body of violating someone's Human Rights. How politically tone deaf can one be?? -- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Mar 17 13:48:42 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:48:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <102B9474-6649-4C31-834C-14E969BBA054@uzh.ch> Norbert On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [I'm writing this email in my role as a co-coordinator of the Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus, i.e. "with coordinator hat on".] > > By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed a > human rights violation. Could you please clarify that in leveling this astonishingly dim, irresponsible, and ill-timed accusation at the focal point of a peer SG in the CSTD process, you are in fact speaking for yourself and not in your capacity as, alas, co-coordinator of the IGC? Leaving the impression (which I hope not to see reported in the blogosphere) that the IGC has so little understanding of human rights and political process that we'd say this to a counterpart SG would really be recall material. Thanks 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 14:50:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:50:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> Irrespective of the largely "interest"ed and diversionary chaff currently being circulated in this discussion I need hardly point out to this group that what is really at stake is a significant test of the current multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance and as an alternative approach to democratic decision making in the Information Society. By any reasonable measure this approach is in this, and I believe significant, instance failing this test in its transparency, accountability, even-handedness, inclusiveness and thus broad acceptance and legitimacy. What is perhaps most disturbing is the apparent failure on the part of proponents to even recognize that there are issues and to indicate that measures might be taken to integrate the concerns and thus evolve the approach into more generally acceptable modes of operation. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 17 March 2013 06:22 PM, parminder wrote: > > > However, on Michael's issue ; > > 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others, being deliberately > blind to the fact that Michael applied to the academic community part > of the 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical community part. > > > > And of course, Adam, you want to take *no note* of the fact that the > criteria Constance gave us which ISOC applies to chose reps from > 'technical and academic community' which is, and I quote > > > "it referred to the community of organizations and individuals who are > involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and > who work within this community" > > simply and completely removes any academic representation, altogether. No, it doesn't. Are you forgetting all the REN folks perhaps? All the Academics who take part i IETF activities/RIR activities? (For the record the European RIR came together by a group of academics, mostly physicists, and was supported by TERENA for several years). So no > academic rep at all in the 'tech and academic community'!!! Does it > not sound strange? It would if it were true, but since it is untrue.. I bet it would to anyone, other than, perhaps, those just too > committed to certain causes and interests.... So, without ceremony > ISOC simply sweeps away all and any possibility of due academic > representation that WSIS and UN GA asked for, and we all are expected > to keep quite because ISOC are our friends . That sounds very very strange to me. sounds strange to me as well, mostly because it is not true. > > The ISOC criteria in fact also removes all the technical people who > may not be managing "day-to-day operational management of the Internet > " in the employment of a few organisations that we all know. And I > know so many technical people who should be considered in 'technical > community' and whose expertise should be used by UN bodies, but who do > not work for an ICANN or ISOC, IETF or RIRs. (Including those who have > never been in civil society, so no 'constituency shopping' excuse can > be used in their case) These bodies (and others) have spent Millions of USD/Euros on "Enhanced cooperation over the last few years. Having staff dedicated to the UN/ITU processes, opening up inter-governmental WGs in their own processes, giving Fellowships to their meetings to government types, supporting the IGF financially, etc, etc. The T&A folk are the only ones committed to EC in this way. I suggest we let their experts use their considerable expertise in EC, and not whinge because we don't like they way they select these experts! > > This cannot be a one sided redefinition of a category which fills as > many places as the whole of civil society does in policy related > bodies. And those who want to debate this issue cannot be reduced to > some kind of mean petulant people who have nothing better to do than raise controversies. You seem to have done this all by yourself to speak frankly! This > is an important and central issue of multistakeholderism, ad we have a > right to discuss it here and communicate our views on the matter. Happy to discuss, not happy that we have communicated a non-consensus position to ISOC, as Norbert has done down thread. If I had the bandwidth I would write up a recall petition as his accusation of "a human rights violation" is WAY beyond the pale! > > MSism will the biggest loser if we refuse to construct the needed > norms, principles and rules for it. These were constructed and have been practiced for decades by the T&A folks. >And here we refuse to even discuss them. We are discussing them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 15:59:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:59:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Irrespective of the largely "interest"ed and diversionary chaff currently > being circulated in this discussion I need hardly point out to this group > that what is really at stake is a significant test of the current > multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance and as an alternative > approach to democratic decision making in the Information Society. The CSTD WG on EC is NOT an example of true MSism in IG. It's a largely top-down intergovernmental process with a few bones thrown to other stakeholders. If you want to see real MSism in action, don't look to any UN process! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Mar 17 16:01:39 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:01:39 +1100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like dropping involvement on this issue altogether. But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining letter to anyone. Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our objectives here. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder snipping... On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples >> down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' > and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put > them together. So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then > what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek > clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on > behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them > my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, > it is really very problematic. My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. Best Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 16:17:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:17:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022301ce234c$6c30fec0$4492fc40$@gmail.com> Interesting, but the issues here don't seem to be the result of UN failings but rather those of a primary proponent of and very significant beneficiary of MSism viz. the lack of transparency, accountability, even-handedness, inclusiveness... Perhaps you could explain. Based on current performance I would expect a purely non-UN process of MSism to be even more questionable in these areas than the current one, except of course to an interested circle of stakeholder insiders. In any case, hardly an appropriate model for democratic decision making in Internet Governance or in the broader areas of an Information Society. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Irrespective of the largely "interest"ed and diversionary chaff > currently being circulated in this discussion I need hardly point out > to this group that what is really at stake is a significant test of > the current multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance and as an > alternative approach to democratic decision making in the Information Society. The CSTD WG on EC is NOT an example of true MSism in IG. It's a largely top-down intergovernmental process with a few bones thrown to other stakeholders. If you want to see real MSism in action, don't look to any UN process! -- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 17 16:40:18 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:40:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> <01c801ce2340$59966270$0cc32750$@gmail.com> Message-ID: With appreciation for the views vehemently opposed to the co- coordinator's post to Ms Bommelaer - let me also notice that that voice, reaching from another SG, - previously - spoke in fashions deemed entirely anathema. By a segment of this caucus. On the one hand, that would not be taken as excusing stepping beyond understood bounds. On the other hand, that is just the sort of power tussle we expect from tribal arrangements ... One goes too far, in the view of some; another responds. Illustrating ... David On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Irrespective of the largely "interest"ed and diversionary chaff > currently > being circulated in this discussion I need hardly point out to this > group > that what is really at stake is a significant test of the current > multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance and as an alternative > approach to democratic decision making in the Information Society. > > By any reasonable measure this approach is in this, and I believe > significant, instance failing this test in its transparency, > accountability, > even-handedness, inclusiveness and thus broad acceptance and > legitimacy. > > What is perhaps most disturbing is the apparent failure on the part of > proponents to even recognize that there are issues and to indicate > that > measures might be taken to integrate the concerns and thus evolve the > approach into more generally acceptable modes of operation. > > Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Mar 17 18:03:03 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:03:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Mar 17 18:24:35 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:24:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> Message-ID: I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 18:46:59 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> Message-ID: <1363560419.59979.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all, +1 for the Workshop. My initial thoughts: Objectives 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held  within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place. Best regards Nnenna   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction.  This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group  representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes.  Conflating the >>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>> triples down on the problem.  This is utter nonsense >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC?  So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground;  the TC  is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it.  Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc.  But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc.  My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context.  It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process.  We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no?  If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us.  Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - -  which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable.  I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 19:09:28 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:09:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation] Message-ID: *To the IGC:* *Warm Greetings from Fiji!* I trust that you are all well and in excellent health. I apologise for the delayed response as I walked over 10km this weekend and was recovering. :) I thought that I should give some background to the discussions on the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Particularly as we have new subscribers who have just recently joined us. This follows a letter by Constance Bommalaer to Anriette which the IGC was copied in. It is important to clarify that the calls for clarification on eligibility of a certain stakeholder is not an attack against whom the clarification is being sought. On the same token, I would like to urge the Caucus to keep the lines of communication open and not use a call for clarification as arsenal or ammunition to create a war with other stakeholder groups. The composition of the Working Group is no doubt critical as it affects us all. For the sake of those who have just recently joined the IGC, this is a brief background and my take on the issues that surfaced. On the same note, it is important to note that Michael Gurstein did not submit his name to the IGC NomCom for consideration for selection in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and did not submit his name to Anriette Esterhuysen for consideration by the assigned Civil Society focal point. On the matter of Michael Gurstein’s interactions with the Technical and Academic community focal point, this is something between Internet Society (ISOC) and Michael Gurstein and for them to sort out. However, an issue that Michael raised is of concern in terms of the interpretation of "Academic and Technical" but more on that later. However, it is important to correct the assertion that Michael Gurstein “double dipped”. *The Dilemma* * * On March 14, 2013, Michael Gurstein informed the IGC that he had been advised that he did not meet the criteria of building the Internet. The issue for discussion is in relation to the interpretation of what the technical and academic community comprises of. This generated dialogue and debate within the IGC on the issue. Of interest was the definition of what constitutes the technical and academic community. There was some discussion and debate about why a technical and academic stakeholder group was carved out. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) had acknowledged that the academic and technical also played an important role[1] <#_ftn1>. Whilst the Tunis Agenda does not explicitly state that there is a separate academic and technical stakeholder group, the past composition of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation creates a precedent coupled with recognition by the WGIG of the importance of having representation by the Academic and Technical community. At this point, discussions on whether or not there should be an Academic and Technical group are not relevant as the UN CSTD has the discretion to set its own criteria and composition. My personal view is that the Academic and Technical community is equally important as civil society, private sector and the public sector. Apteral, we should not forget that the Tunis Agenda acknowledges that the “Internet is a central element of the Infrastructure within the Information Society that evolved from a research and academic facility into a global facility available to the public[2]<#_ftn2> ”. The issue that is of concern however, is the interpretation of Academic and Technical. It is important to recognise that any interpretation must be viewed with the lenses of the Tunis Agenda. The Tunis Agenda and the UNGA Resolution 67/195 highlights the context and is “wider and expansive” than just the Internet as it includes bridging the digital divide and Information Communication Technologies as this is part of the broad mandate of working alongside diverse stakeholders to explore means of increasing cooperation. On the same token Paragraph 31 of the Tunis Agenda reminds us of the importance of having a people-centred, inclusive, development oriented approach that is non-discriminatory. One of the reasons why simple requests for clarification is able to generate conflicts is the underlying fear that new organisations may be created to take over certain responsibilities or turf wars. Many can testify that there are members of all stakeholder communities who have spent many years, and laboured to work on building relationships and progressively advancing in the nature of cooperation and this includes having frank discussions. This does not mean that there will always be agreement on issues but that we can dialogue on issues professionally and in a civil manner. *The Context* * * The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted *resolution 67/195 **on** Information and communication technologies for development** [3]* <#_ftn3>. This resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[4] <#_ftn4>, to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. The Tunis Agenda[5] <#_ftn5> pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions. The *GA RES 67/195 *requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to “ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organisations”. In a letter to the members of the UN CSTD on 29th January, 2013, the Chair invited feedback before 8 February, 2013 on the Note that he had prepared in relation to the composition of the Working Group. As per the Chair’s Note[6] <#_ftn6>, the Composition for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is as follows: · 22 Member States (four per regional group plus the two that have hosted the · World Summit on the Information Society) · Five representatives from the business community · Five representatives from civil society · Five representatives from representatives from the technical and academic community · Five representatives from intergovernmental organizations On 15 February, 2013, the IGC NomCom made an open call to the IGC for nominations for the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. On 22 February, 2013, the IGC community was informed that the Chair had written to Anriette Esterhuysen to be the civil society focal point and she outlined the role of the focal point. On 14 March, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen updated the IGC on the process of selection and the composition of the group that she gathered to help her run the selection process. Of the 6 names submitted by Anriette Esterhuysen, the Chair would only select 5. At this stage, it is important to underscore that Anriette did an excellent job in reaching out to the IGC and other civil society organisations without a doubt and the manner in which she selected people to assist her in the selections was also inclusive. *Way Forward* * * The UN CSTD is running behind time in the selection of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the work of selection is a critical one. The IGC can work towards developing a clear normative framework for the selection of Working Groups and Committees as suggested by Parminder. This can be led by a group of volunteers from within the IGC. This can also be in the form of a Workshop as suggested by Anriette. This can be submitted to the UN CSTD for endorsement and Accountability and Transparency and good governance demands that guidelines and criteria are well published and clear. ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> Part IV Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing countries. Para 29 , page 8 of the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, Chateau de Bossey, June 2005 in http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html [2] <#_ftnref2> Para 30 of the Tunis Agenda [3] <#_ftnref3> http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf [4] <#_ftnref4> Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the UN CSTD [5] <#_ftnref5> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html [6] <#_ftnref6> http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2013d01_ares67d195.pdf Kind Regards, Sala Co-coordinator of the IGC *Disclaimer* The views expressed are my personal views. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 19:09:47 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:09:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <1363560419.59979.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <1363560419.59979.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028001ce2364$8c767bc0$a5637340$@gmail.com> I think this idea as refined by Nnenna below has a lot merit particularly if it is looking to identify appropriate norms and principles of SG operation in such areas as transparency, accountability, even-handedness, and inclusion. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all, +1 for the Workshop. My initial thoughts: Objectives 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place. Best regards Nnenna Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com _____ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 17 20:28:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:28:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <004a01ce22ff$b2e28e80$18a7ab80$@gmail.com> <007401ce2307$a2c89280$e859b780$@gmail.com> <5145BC94.9030500@itforchange.net> <5145CA9D.8030308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130318012811.525924b4@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > If I had the bandwidth I would write up a recall petition as his > accusation of "a human rights violation" is WAY beyond the pale! A procedurally easier process to potentially achieve an equivalent result would be to make a formal appeal against my decision to speak out against what at least in my eyes is a clear human rights violation (specifically, someone appointed by the Chair of the UN CSTD has been trying to deny M.G., who has been adversely affected by how a particular administrative process was conducted, the right to question whether that process in fact conforms to the relevant UN GA resolution, and by implication M.G.'s right to an independent and impartial review of this question and M.G.'s associated rights and obligations, in violation of UDHR Art. 10) without first taking the "coordinator hat" off. If such an appeal were to be successful, it would lead to my immediate resignation from the co-coordinator role. I would not want to have that kind of role in a "Civil Society Caucus" where human rights are not valued highly enough that it is quite generally accepted when Caucus coordinators insist on them, even when doing so is politically inconvenient, for example as in this case because it concerns people whom I and many other Caucus members would very much have liked to have as allies. By the way, in regard to the accusation of me being "politically tone deaf": I have been worried about the potential of this situation to blow up ever since Jeremy's first posting on this subject, and I have tried to communicate with Constance Bommelaer privately with the goal to clarify her understanding of the phrase "technical and academic community" (unlike in the GA resolution and in the CSTD chair's "Note on Composition and Guidelines" for the WG, in the "Focal Points" document, possibly unintentionally, the singular is used - on the basis of the information that I had available at that time, it was reasonable to start from the assumption that the issue could be the result of a misunderstanding), in order to double-check the assertion of this having been interpreted in a way that excludes non-technical academics, and then (in a second step) to hopefully help resolve any misunderstanding in a way that would not be damaging to relationships. She has chosen not to respond to me, but instead two days later she sent that (in my eyes at least) rather offensive message to Anriette with Cc: to us and to the "business community focal point", to which I have replied. A copy of my initial email to her (to which I did not receive any response) is provided below. Greetings, Norbert ..snip------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norbert Bollow To: bommelaer at isoc.org Subject: CSTD WG on Enhanced Coopration Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:29:55 +0100 Dear Ms. Bommelaer I'm looking for information on the precise definition of "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITY" that has been used in the process of making a recommendation to the Chair of the CSTD. Specifically I'd like to know whether the definition that has been used includes academics whose field of study is not related to the technical aspects of making the Internet work. Can you help me? Best regards Norbert Bollow co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 17 20:35:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:35:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <515EDEDC-64D6-4422-A424-7B4F9E9CE9D4@ciroap.org> On 18/03/2013, at 7:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > I thought that I should give some background to the discussions on the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Particularly as we have new subscribers who have just recently joined us. > > This follows a letter by Constance Bommalaer to Anriette which the IGC was copied in. > > It is important to clarify that the calls for clarification on eligibility of a certain stakeholder is not an attack against whom the clarification is being sought. > Sala, this is a very thoughtful and considered summation, which without minimising the concerns that some of us have expressed (some in more heated terms than others), is a good step towards rapprochement with the technical community. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 00:06:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:06:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Request for an appeal to the decision to write to the T&A Focal Point Message-ID: I hereby request the appeal team to review the decision of Norbert as co-co to write to ISOC as he did. It was unwarranted, there was no consensus claimed or gauged, in fact there was considerable division on the list as to our role in their process. I think an apology is in order to the T&A Focal Point for our coordinator writing to her with his IGC hat on, he should include in his apology that the IGC did not authorise him to write to her nor did we authorise an accusation of a HR violation. >From our Charter: "Duties of the appeals team. Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed." I ask IGC Members to support this appeal. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 00:12:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:42:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Request for an appeal to the decision to write to the T&A Focal Point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13d7bb2cc0a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I support --srs (htc one x) On 18 March 2013 9:36:54 AM McTim wrote: > I hereby request the appeal team to review the decision of Norbert as > co-co to write to ISOC as he did. > > It was unwarranted, there was no consensus claimed or gauged, in fact > there was considerable > division on the list as to our role in their process. > > I think an apology is in order to the T&A Focal Point for our > coordinator writing to her with his IGC hat on, he should include in > his apology that the IGC did not authorise him to write to her nor did > we authorise an accusation of a HR violation. > > From our Charter: > > "Duties of the appeals team. > > Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the > main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the > coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will > review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from > the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and > discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. > Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the > appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore votes, except in the case of > coordinator recall which requires full consensus. > The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed." > > > I ask IGC Members to support this appeal. > > > > -- > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Mar 18 00:59:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:59:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Request for an appeal to the decision to write to the T&A Focal Point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51469F28.6090608@ciroap.org> On 18/03/13 12:06, McTim wrote: > I hereby request the appeal team to review the decision of Norbert as > co-co to write to ISOC as he did. > > It was unwarranted, there was no consensus claimed or gauged, in fact > there was considerable division on the list as to our role in their process. > > I think an apology is in order to the T&A Focal Point for our > coordinator writing to her with his IGC hat on, he should include in > his apology that the IGC did not authorise him to write to her nor did > we authorise an accusation of a HR violation. I don't support the appeal, largely because I don't see what purpose it could serve. Constance is a list member anyway (has been for over a year - any list member can view the other members, so I'm not divulging any secrets there), so she can judge for herself as to whether Norbert's message represented a consensus view or not. That's the good (or bad) thing about the radical transparency that the IGC practices; we are an open book. -- *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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 18 03:20:35 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:20:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Request for an appeal to the decision to write to the T&A Focal Point In-Reply-To: <51469F28.6090608@ciroap.org> References: <51469F28.6090608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Better if Norbert just apologized, not wasted the time of the appeals team. Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/03/13 12:06, McTim wrote: > > I hereby request the appeal team to review the decision of Norbert as > co-co to write to ISOC as he did. > > It was unwarranted, there was no consensus claimed or gauged, in fact > there was considerable division on the list as to our role in their process. > > I think an apology is in order to the T&A Focal Point for our > coordinator writing to her with his IGC hat on, he should include in > his apology that the IGC did not authorise him to write to her nor did > we authorise an accusation of a HR violation. > > > I don't support the appeal, largely because I don't see what purpose it > could serve. Constance is a list member anyway (has been for over a year - > any list member can view the other members, so I'm not divulging any secrets > there), so she can judge for herself as to whether Norbert's message > represented a consensus view or not. That's the good (or bad) thing about > the radical transparency that the IGC practices; we are an open book. > > -- > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 03:51:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:21:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 March 2013 03:37 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: > >>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? Hi Bill No, it isnt. I just believe that each so called stakeholder group have different legitimacies to be on the table and different roles. In fact, those who put civil society to have similar legitimacy and role as private sector or technical community do a great disservice to the very idea of civil society. And this needs deep interrogation and corrections, esp in the discourse of multistakeholderism (MSism). Bill, I remember your presentation at ITU workshop at an early WSIS forum in Geneva. You insisted, against some ITU wording that civil society is not here just for expertise, and if I remember right, you said it brought in representation etc. And I very much agreed. Do you think that private sector, and technical community also similarly bring in 'representation' in its meaning in democratic theory? That is the key question. We need to seriously discuss this question, and the related ones. I think they only bring certain expertise and knowledge to the table, and thus their presence cna never be considered similar either to civil society's or to governments. I am ready to debate this, and also to take this debate out to larger civil society and academic quarters. > So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, Here we are running into the problem of what we mean by TC (technical community). ISOC as the focal point includes in this category only those who are clearly involved with day to day technical operational management of the Internet (with which I understand those involved with ICANN, RIRs, the etc, I am not sure IETF can be considered to be invovled in day to day operational management but lets say they are in too, I dont think ISOC is involved with day to day operational management, but anyway.....) Now, I am pretty sure that this is not how the term 'technical community' is used by people on this list, or in general IG space. IN fact many people here who consider themselves as tech community will be extremely disappointed by this definition, whether they are speaking out about it nor not. Neither did WSIS documents use the term in this manner. (For instance sec 35 puts International organisations that develop Internet related standards and policies in 35 e, very distinct from the mention of 'technical and academic community' later on as cross cutting across all stakeholder groups.) But in any case, going by ISOCs definition, do you think those who are involved with day to day operational management of the Internet, actually represent a constituency as for instance civil society and its various sub groups - gender, disability, ingenious people etc do? And even if say yes to this, that they should get the same number of seats at the policy table as the entire civil society does? > one that's bigger than the IGC. IGC in not the issue. Larger civil society is..... > But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Do you see yourself both ways, or just one? Just to help understand categories. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. me too disagree. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. I agree. For civil society while the expertise of an academic is of instrumental value, the real part is the interests s/he represents, through networks, demonstrated work etc. > My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. > >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, How 5 five seats on an important policy related global body gets filled affects everyone. That is the reason we are raising questions. > e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? No, I wouldnt. Anyone can pose questions to us in public interest. And questions from a big respected body like ICC will be considered with all the due respect. And you know it that is how we will treat it, dont you. We will never look like saying, this is none of your business. Because we do believe this is everyone's business. I have not the slightest doubt about it. By the way, do we never have questions on how governments organise themselves. We certainly can and should have. > If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Some kinds or process, but for those with larger public implication, everyone is involved. > Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. It is wrong principle all stakeholder categories are some kind of closed >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, There us nothing adversarial here. This is a political space, and we are talking to people in a public role (why such deep freindly considerations are not applied to governments for instance). Question asking is part of democratic practice (how much of it your congress does, is all that to be considered as avoidably adversarial). I have a deep problem with MSism becoming a kind of cosy relationship elitism, and disconnecting from practices and principles of democratic public life. > but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. I have absolutely no idea why should we not discuss this thing here in the civil society before we discuss it with others. BTW, since respective cultures are often mentioned, dont we all know that other groups no not have that kind of a deliberative culture as CS does, and it must too. parminder > > Best > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 04:24:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:54:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> Message-ID: <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> Dear Ian and Anriette, Yes, we should have a workshop on this issue at IGF Bali. Lets take care, however, to structure it for real reflection and deliberation, and not whitewashing issues, and I have enough experience of enough workshops at the IGF that take issues to the IGF precisely to do that. However, such a multistakeholder discussion in a formal space becomes no reason for us not to have a discussion here, in this 'civil society' caucus. I think the accusation of this conversation being counter-productive is hugely overstated, if not completely misplaced. Every political discussion does create some heat, but that is an important and necessary social process - especially for those who are not served by extant power structures. And the CS to me represents the latter. And so I dont think we should be over sensitive on this. That would be being too conservative. Postponing a discussion and needed action to some indefinite later time because the discussion is causing heat will just contribute to us never doing anything, never contributing to a better world. And that is not what most of us are here for. Having said so, I dont think anyone here who has spoken for accountability seeking from people in public roles, with a duty to recommend/appoint persons who would be part of an important public body, has uttered any objectionable words. In fact I have heard more objectionable words from those who are against such accountabiltiy seeking (which still I dont consider as an excuse for stopping the debate, especially becuase that may be the precise reason such words were used). As for the view that one stakeholder group should not have anything to say about how another group selects nominees to a body that will make decisions that apply to all of us, is to me is simply astounding. It is like saying that I being from the state of Punjab in India should have nothing to say about how members of national parliament get elected from another state, say of Orissa !!?? Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its responsibility in the present case, and goes beyond simple waffling, I will seek that we do something here when so many of us clearly see there is a problem to be addressed. I see good support for a letter to the CSTD instead of ISOC (maybe we can copy that letter to them), and in my next email I will prose such a text. I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion, unless of course we see complete support for the letter in which case the vote will be unnecessary. parminder On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >> >> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >> letter to anyone. >> >> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >> objectives here. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> snipping... >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>> logical to put them together. >> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >> >> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >> settings, but that's another conversation. >> >>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >> remains valid. >>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >> it could be worth a try. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Mar 18 04:56:45 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:56:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <51441C03.2000503@itforchange.net> <51441CD0.8080606@itforchange.net> <3AD59E44-E863-4900-93C3-6B43B7A2B53A@acm.org> <51454881.8070000@itforchange.net> <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2yJUePZNbtRRFAzW@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <7983EDD82CDB43649208C4E42798744F at Toshiba>, at 16:02:56 on Sun, 17 Mar 2013, Ian Peter writes >But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If >their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside >their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition >for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this >marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each >choosing their own smaller set of representatives I'm reminded of when I used to arrange government-facing activities at RIPE meetings (which was later identified as "Enhanced co-operation"), and attendees at those meetings would self-identify into various categories. It always surprised me to find people whose jobs were running the academic IP networks sometimes self-identifying themselves as "Government", on the basis that they were working for a government-funded organisation. Another way of looking at them was as "public sector ISPs". And actually, a few were lawyers (rather than engineers) too; but there's also such a thing as a pioneering IP lawyer - right at the heart of Internet Governance. -- 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 Mar 18 06:05:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:35:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its > responsibility in the present case, and goes beyond simple waffling, I > will seek that we do something here when so many of us clearly see > there is a problem to be addressed. I see good support for a letter to > the CSTD instead of ISOC (maybe we can copy that letter to them), and > in my next email I will prose such a text. > > I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion, unless > of course we see complete support for the letter in which case the > vote will be unnecessary. Hi All, I propose the following text for an IGC letter to the Chair of CSTD ( with a possible cc to ISOC). parminder (Suggested text begins) Dear ... Chair, CSTD. We approach your office to request a clarification about the definition that was employed, or was supposed to be employed, to identify nominees from the 'technical and academic community' for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation that is being set up. Some academics have felt excluded because, apparently, as per a communication to us from the Focal Point for forwarding nominees from the 'technical and academic community' only "organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community" were considered. We are not sure how this definition matches with the intention of Tunis Agenda (particularly Sec 35) and the concerned UN General Assembly resolution that mandated the setting up of the Working Group, which, significantly, uses the plural term 'technical and academic communities'. We will particularly like to know if academics can apply under this category, and whether applying academics should just be from among technical/ engineering disciplines, or if other areas of academic expertise related to Internet – like social media, ICTs for development, cyber-law, etc may also be eligible? Secondly, whether technical people who may not be associated with organizations involved with day to day operational management of the Internet may also be considered in this category? We understand that participation of different non-government stakeholders in increasingly the norm in WSIS related processes, for which the CSTD is the focal point for system-wide follow-up. In this regard, whether this may or not have any bearing on the current process for constituting the WG on EC, such a clarification would be extremely useful for other such processes in the future. We also take the opportunity to draw your attention to the report of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, whereby it has been recommended that the process of stakeholder nomination and selection for Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the UN Internet Governance Forum be fully documented and publicized. It would perhaps be useful to make such full documentation and publication as the norm for stakeholder nomination/ selection processes for all bodies, committees, working groups etc. We are happy to assist you in all ways possible for developing norms and guidelines for selection of stakeholder representatives to various bodies, which, in our view, is an exercise that should be undertaken in the right earnest. (ends) > > parminder > > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >> >> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >> SGs about how to improve processes. >> >> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >> >> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >> could also discuss the categorisation of these >> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >>> >>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >>> letter to anyone. >>> >>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >>> objectives here. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>> >>> Hi Parminder >>> >>> snipping... >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>>> logical to put them together. >>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >>> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >>> >>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >>> settings, but that's another conversation. >>> >>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >>> remains valid. >>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >>> it could be worth a try. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Mar 18 06:41:43 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:41:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> Message-ID: <5146EF67.6030603@apc.org> Dear Constance (copying Ayesha Hassan - business focal point - and the IGC list) Thank you for your message and for your openness to discussing the concerns raised in the IGC list. I am responding in my capacity as focal point for the selection of CS participants in the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. As you have been following the discussion on the IGC list you would have a sense of the range of concerns and issues (and views on these) that this process has generated. As the political implications of the work done in these multi-stakeholder processes increase in potential impact - which is a positive sign - it is understandable that the processes used to identify participants in them will be under more intense scrutiny. This is certainly the case when it comes to 'enhanced cooperation'. I don't think that this scrutiny is being applied only to the TA constituency. I think it applies to all three non-governmental groups and possibly also to governments. In my role as focal point I tried to, on the one hand, respect the CS groupings already active in the IGF space, as well as create opportunities for civil society organisations/individuals that are not necessarily active in the IGF, but that have valuable experience in other governance processes. I was not as successful in this attempt as I would have liked to be. With regard to Michael Gurstein's nomination I can confirm that he did not put his name forward for CS selection. When I approached him to confirm his interest – I knew he was interested in participating in the WG - he informed me that he had put his name forward to the TA community and he was therefore not included in the CS selection process at all. My view is that the most constructive approach at this point would be: 1) For the chairperson of the CSTD to finalise the selection of the WG based on the inputs received from stakeholder groups and for the CSTD WG to start its work; 2) For the non-governmental stakeholder groups to pick up on the issues and concerns that the selection has raised at a workshop at the 2013 IGF. Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three groups and used to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the CSTD WG on EC. The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder processes 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups are defined and represented 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss possible principles to work from 4. Propose working methods for going forward 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working document to the CSTD WG on EC. Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. Best regards Anriette On 17/03/2013 11:18, Constance Bommelaer wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil > Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on > Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the > importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build > across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this > reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. > > The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a > move underway to question the representation of the technical and > academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was > triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael > Gurstein. > > I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our > stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our > community. The names put forward were subject to considerable > discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil > Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The > criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as > with the UN. > > Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria > and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to > the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up > until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society > and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent > WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an > interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to > confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to > the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various > stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” > and question the entire process. > > The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a > separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group > and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is > understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be > discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context > was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and > individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management > of the Internet and who work within this community. This category > manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been > involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with > Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005. > > Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder > groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the > technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or > even for its representatives to be appointed by governments > contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached > to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control > upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another. This would > be the end of multistakeholderism. > > Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a > delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing > it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work > is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit, > the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open > and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the > inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are > being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of > individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance > discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). > > Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups > are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to > working with all of you in this spirit. > > Thank you and best regards, > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 18 07:23:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:23:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: > Constance Bommelaer wrote: > > I do believe, however, that unsuccessful > > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency > > shopping” > > Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. > > He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the > one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular > situation. > > > and question the entire process. > > By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed > a human rights violation. Dear Mrs. Bommelaer Some members of the IGC have suggested that I should apologize for my assertion of a human rights violation, and I hereby do so on the basis of me possibly having misunderstood/misjudged your intent behind those words. Best regards Norbert Nollow -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 07:25:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:25:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130318112519.GA1227@hserus.net> I must thank Norbert for promptly stepping up to apologize for whatever was said in the heat of the moment. Norbert Bollow [18/03/13 12:23 +0100]: >I had written: > >> Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> > I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >> > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency >> > shopping” >> >> Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. >> >> He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the >> one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular >> situation. >> >> > and question the entire process. >> >> By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed >> a human rights violation. > >Dear Mrs. Bommelaer > >Some members of the IGC have suggested that I should apologize for my >assertion of a human rights violation, and I hereby do so on the basis >of me possibly having misunderstood/misjudged your intent behind those >words. > >Best regards >Norbert Nollow > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Mar 18 07:41:01 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:41:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder snipping On Mar 18, 2013, at 8:51 AM, parminder wrote: >> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? > > Hi Bill > > No, it isnt. Hmm…you sure? > But in any case, going by ISOCs definition, do you think those who are involved with day to day operational management of the Internet, actually represent a constituency as for instance civil society and its various sub groups - gender, disability, ingenious people etc do? And even if say yes to this, that they should get the same number of seats at the policy table as the entire civil society does? How social theorists of CS etc would see this is an interesting question, but in terms of the immediate issue of how the UN organizes interest aggregation and representation in this space, yes I see a constituency. And if you don't, but rather see the TC like academics as a sort of cross-cutting set of individuals with some sort of expertise, then I don't see how you can say no to my question above. That said, I think it'd be helpful to try to arrive at a more principled conceptualization of the TC than either "people who've contributed to the technical development of the net" or "people involved in the day to day operation of the net," since neither appears to have a consistent relationship to who's deemed to be in or out of the tribe. > >> But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Do you see yourself both ways, or just one? Just to help understand categories. I see myself as a CS person who also plays in some TC spaces a bit. >> >> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > > me too disagree. >> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. > I agree. For civil society while the expertise of an academic is of instrumental value, the real part is the interests s/he represents, through networks, demonstrated work etc. Careful now, that's two statements of agreement between us in one para…I'm feeling a hint of vertigo :-) > How 5 five seats on an important policy related global body gets filled affects everyone. That is the reason we are raising questions. Until persuaded otherwise I'm content with 5/5/5, and would encourage you and anyone else who's not to develop a principled case in a manner that other SGs might reasonably be expected to engage in dialogue on. What's been happening lately pushes against dialogue and mutual understanding. > >> e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? > > No, I wouldnt. Anyone can pose questions to us in public interest. And questions from a big respected body like ICC will be considered with all the due respect. And you know it that is how we will treat it, dont you. We will never look like saying, this is none of your business. Because we do believe this is everyone's business. I have not the slightest doubt about it. By the way, do we never have questions on how governments organise themselves. We certainly can and should have. Ok, I should have said some might think…I know you'd not shy away from debate on this or anything else and see that as just good democratic practice. >> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, > > There us nothing adversarial here. Yesterday, allegedly speaking on our behalf, our co-coordinator publicly called an ISOC staffer a human rights violator. Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep. And so on…nothing adversarial? > >> but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. > > I have absolutely no idea why should we not discuss this thing here in the civil society before we discuss it with others. BTW, since respective cultures are often mentioned, dont we all know that other groups no not have that kind of a deliberative culture as CS does, and it must too. There's no "before," people from other SGs are on the list, and judging from the side traffic apparently not all feeling emboldened right now about pursuing deeper dialogue and cooperation with the IGC. Hopefully the situation improves and something useful eventually arises from all this sturm und drang. Maybe Anriette's workshop proposal could help in this context; not exactly the right format, but at least it's a known vehicle. BTW I do agree with you (a third time!) that a more open and deliberative culture would be desirable across the SGs…We may wash our dirty laundry in public, but at least we wash our dirty laundry in public…. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 18 08:20:25 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:20:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: When CSTD appointed the focal points and gave them guidelines (see attached), Constance Bommelaer was appointed "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT" (caps from the original document, not mine.) Apologies due to Constance perhaps? Non technical academics have always been welcome in this caucus, in fact I think fair to say there wouldn't be a caucus without them. I think taking this matter to a workshop in Bali would be helpful. Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:05 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its responsibility > in the present case, and goes beyond simple waffling, I will seek that we do > something here when so many of us clearly see there is a problem to be > addressed. I see good support for a letter to the CSTD instead of ISOC > (maybe we can copy that letter to them), and in my next email I will prose > such a text. > > I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion, unless of > course we see complete support for the letter in which case the vote will be > unnecessary. > > > Hi All, > > I propose the following text for an IGC letter to the Chair of CSTD ( with a > possible cc to ISOC). > > parminder > > (Suggested text begins) > > Dear ... > Chair, CSTD. > > > We approach your office to request a clarification about the definition that > was employed, or was supposed to be employed, to identify nominees from the > 'technical and academic community' for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation that is being set up. Some academics have felt excluded because, > apparently, as per a communication to us from the Focal Point for forwarding > nominees from the 'technical and academic community' only "organizations and > individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the > Internet and who work within this community" were considered. > > We are not sure how this definition matches with the intention of Tunis > Agenda (particularly Sec 35) and the concerned UN General Assembly > resolution that mandated the setting up of the Working Group, which, > significantly, uses the plural term 'technical and academic communities'. > > We will particularly like to know if academics can apply under this > category, and whether applying academics should just be from among > technical/ engineering disciplines, or if other areas of academic expertise > related to Internet – like social media, ICTs for development, cyber-law, > etc may also be eligible? Secondly, whether technical people who may not be > associated with organizations involved with day to day operational > management of the Internet may also be considered in this category? > > We understand that participation of different non-government stakeholders in > increasingly the norm in WSIS related processes, for which the CSTD is the > focal point for system-wide follow-up. In this regard, whether this may or > not have any bearing on the current process for constituting the WG on EC, > such a clarification would be extremely useful for other such processes in > the future. > > We also take the opportunity to draw your attention to the report of the > CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, whereby it has been > recommended that the process of stakeholder nomination and selection for > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the UN Internet Governance Forum be > fully documented and publicized. It would perhaps be useful to make such > full documentation and publication as the norm for stakeholder nomination/ > selection processes for all bodies, committees, working groups etc. > > We are happy to assist you in all ways possible for developing norms and > guidelines for selection of stakeholder representatives to various bodies, > which, in our view, is an exercise that should be undertaken in the right > earnest. > > (ends) > > > > > > > > > > > > > parminder > > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the > 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just > triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of > 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very > logical to put them together. > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. > Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and > seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to > be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role > entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to > be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Focal Points for Consultations.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 210072 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 08:22:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:52:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <514706F2.2090602@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 05:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, >> There us nothing adversarial here. > Yesterday, allegedly speaking on our behalf, our co-coordinator publicly called an ISOC staffer a human rights violator. Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep. And so on…nothing adversarial? Ok, lets try a fair assessment of this. You cite two instances. About the first, Norbert apologised just now. (I understand he wanted to say that denial of the right of Michael to question the process is a violation of his human rights, which he unfortunately put in an active voice with direct ascription of the violation to Constance which indeed sounded odd). About the second, connected to above issue, is it not Michael's right to appeal about a process that he feels has not worked fairly for him? What is wrong in it? We do it all the time here in IGC about IGC processes. Are all those instances to be considered as necessarily adversarial to the co-coordinators. On the other hand, Constance in her official email calls simple efforts to seek transparency and public accountability from persons undertaking a public role as 'attacks between different stakeholder groups' , which I think was very unfair and an unnecessary escalation. In public life here in India, and I know in democratic polities everywhere, very high public figures write these kinds of letters very often to each other without them being referred to as 'attacks'. I think this term was not in keeping with democratic dialogue. Even more, Constance's emails made a public observation, which clearly amounts to an accusation, that Michael was seeking nomination both from civil society side and 'technical and academic kind'. Note how problematic were her words, and I quote " unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” and question the entire process". We now know that this is not at all true. (And although Michael wrote an email on this quite a while back, there is no apology yet in this regard.) Further, some IGCians took the cue from the word 'attack' and have made rather strong statements against those who raised the transparency/ accountability issues.......... I can take this to be normal heat generated in a political discussion, but to call one side (one which raised the questions first) being adversarial and having spoiled the pitch is completely untrue and unfair. > > There's no "before," people from other SGs are on the list, and judging from the side traffic apparently not all feeling emboldened right now about pursuing deeper dialogue and cooperation with the IGC. Hopefully the situation improves Well, this is a clear statement that those who 'asked the questions' are responsible for the reticence of those from whom the questions were asked... A very wrong and unfortunate construction, I think. parminder > and something useful eventually arises from all this sturm und drang. Maybe Anriette's workshop proposal could help in this context; not exactly the right format, but at least it's a known vehicle. > > BTW I do agree with you (a third time!) that a more open and deliberative culture would be desirable across the SGs…We may wash our dirty laundry in public, but at least we wash our dirty laundry in public…. > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 18 08:34:59 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:34:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Perhaps you should have included that you were writing in your personal capacity. I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think most of us who have been coordinators attempted that. Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I had written: > >> Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> > I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >> > applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency >> > shopping” >> >> Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. >> >> He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the >> one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular >> situation. >> >> > and question the entire process. >> >> By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed >> a human rights violation. > > Dear Mrs. Bommelaer > > Some members of the IGC have suggested that I should apologize for my > assertion of a human rights violation, and I hereby do so on the basis > of me possibly having misunderstood/misjudged your intent behind those > words. > > Best regards > Norbert Nollow > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 09:20:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:50:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514714A2.5000802@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > When CSTD appointed the focal points and gave them guidelines (see > attached), Constance Bommelaer was appointed "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC > COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT" (caps from the original document, not mine.) Yes, that's why we plan to write to CSTD Chair. Entirely consistent. > > Apologies due to Constance perhaps? I did not understand. Apologies for ? Non technical academics have always been welcome in this caucus, Yes, they have been and are always very welcome. > in > fact I think fair to say there wouldn't be a caucus without them. > > I think taking this matter to a workshop in Bali would be helpful. Agreed. That too is proposed. parminder > > Adam > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:05 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Monday 18 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its responsibility >> in the present case, and goes beyond simple waffling, I will seek that we do >> something here when so many of us clearly see there is a problem to be >> addressed. I see good support for a letter to the CSTD instead of ISOC >> (maybe we can copy that letter to them), and in my next email I will prose >> such a text. >> >> I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion, unless of >> course we see complete support for the letter in which case the vote will be >> unnecessary. >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> I propose the following text for an IGC letter to the Chair of CSTD ( with a >> possible cc to ISOC). >> >> parminder >> >> (Suggested text begins) >> >> Dear ... >> Chair, CSTD. >> >> >> We approach your office to request a clarification about the definition that >> was employed, or was supposed to be employed, to identify nominees from the >> 'technical and academic community' for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced >> Cooperation that is being set up. Some academics have felt excluded because, >> apparently, as per a communication to us from the Focal Point for forwarding >> nominees from the 'technical and academic community' only "organizations and >> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the >> Internet and who work within this community" were considered. >> >> We are not sure how this definition matches with the intention of Tunis >> Agenda (particularly Sec 35) and the concerned UN General Assembly >> resolution that mandated the setting up of the Working Group, which, >> significantly, uses the plural term 'technical and academic communities'. >> >> We will particularly like to know if academics can apply under this >> category, and whether applying academics should just be from among >> technical/ engineering disciplines, or if other areas of academic expertise >> related to Internet – like social media, ICTs for development, cyber-law, >> etc may also be eligible? Secondly, whether technical people who may not be >> associated with organizations involved with day to day operational >> management of the Internet may also be considered in this category? >> >> We understand that participation of different non-government stakeholders in >> increasingly the norm in WSIS related processes, for which the CSTD is the >> focal point for system-wide follow-up. In this regard, whether this may or >> not have any bearing on the current process for constituting the WG on EC, >> such a clarification would be extremely useful for other such processes in >> the future. >> >> We also take the opportunity to draw your attention to the report of the >> CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, whereby it has been >> recommended that the process of stakeholder nomination and selection for >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the UN Internet Governance Forum be >> fully documented and publicized. It would perhaps be useful to make such >> full documentation and publication as the norm for stakeholder nomination/ >> selection processes for all bodies, committees, working groups etc. >> >> We are happy to assist you in all ways possible for developing norms and >> guidelines for selection of stakeholder representatives to various bodies, >> which, in our view, is an exercise that should be undertaken in the right >> earnest. >> >> (ends) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >> >> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >> SGs about how to improve processes. >> >> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >> >> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >> could also discuss the categorisation of these >> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >> >> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >> letter to anyone. >> >> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >> objectives here. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> snipping... >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. >> >> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >> >> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >> settings, but that's another conversation. >> >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >> >> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >> remains valid. >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >> >> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >> it could be worth a try. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 18 09:27:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:27:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from > discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach > consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think most > of us who have been coordinators attempted that. I agree that helping the Caucus (or any group for that matter) reach consensus is not possible while at the same time vigorously arguing a viewpoint that has turned out to be controversial. It is good that the Caucus has two coordinators. So it should be possible for either of the coordinators to recuse him- or herself from exercising the coordinator role with regard to any particular topic on which he or she has (what turns out to be) controversial views, and feels strongly about them. Sala, would be possible for you to handle the consensus process(es) regarding the issue about representation of communities of non-technical academics in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation? This would in particular include the consensus process for the proposed letter to the Chair of the CSTD. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 09:36:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:06:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <514714A2.5000802@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> <514714A2.5000802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 18-Mar-2013, at 18:50, parminder wrote: > On Monday 18 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> When CSTD appointed the focal points and gave them guidelines (see >> attached), Constance Bommelaer was appointed "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC >> COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT" (caps from the original document, not mine.) > > Yes, that's why we plan to write to CSTD Chair. Entirely consistent. We, as in you, and some other members of the list, in their personal capacities I hope. I have absolutely no intention of signing the draft that was just circulated and would object to it being forwarded as from the IG Caucus. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Mar 18 09:52:43 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:52:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: And where is the apology from Bommelaer, for her misstatement and the serious implications therefrom? David On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I had written: > >> Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >>> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency >>> shopping” >> >> Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”. >> >> He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the >> one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular >> situation. >> >>> and question the entire process. >> >> By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed >> a human rights violation. > > Dear Mrs. Bommelaer > > Some members of the IGC have suggested that I should apologize for my > assertion of a human rights violation, and I hereby do so on the basis > of me possibly having misunderstood/misjudged your intent behind those > words. > > Best regards > Norbert Nollow -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Mar 18 10:52:36 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:52:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1B554286-5FBC-46FD-9080-387AAFA66915@acm.org> hi, I tend to think the whole Technical and Academic community issues was really due to a misnomer. Definitionally EC is between entities: - those responsible for managing the critical Internet resources - the rest of those interested in Internet governance. While Governments sometimes try to maintain that it is solely between them ad the Organizations responsible for managing the critical resources of the Internet, some of us contend that it is broader and it between all the Tunis Agenda defined SGs and the Organizations responsible for managing the critical resources of the Internet. Whatever the case, though it is between 2 groups the Organization responsible for managing the critical resources of the Internet and the other SGs. When I read Technical and Academic Community in the context of CSTD EC WG, I thought "Organizations responsible for managing the critical Internet resources". If it is not them, then are we really talking about a WG that will discuss EC without the party we need EC with being in the room? avri CSTD - Commission on Science and Technology for development EC - Enhanced Cooperation WG - Working Group -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 18 10:59:15 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:59:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two coordinators. In my experience. Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from >> discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach >> consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think most >> of us who have been coordinators attempted that. > > I agree that helping the Caucus (or any group for that matter) reach > consensus is not possible while at the same time vigorously arguing > a viewpoint that has turned out to be controversial. > > It is good that the Caucus has two coordinators. So it should be > possible for either of the coordinators to recuse him- or herself > from exercising the coordinator role with regard to any particular > topic on which he or she has (what turns out to be) controversial > views, and feels strongly about them. > > Sala, would be possible for you to handle the consensus process(es) > regarding the issue about representation of communities of non-technical > academics in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation? > > This would in particular include the consensus process for the proposed > letter to the Chair of the CSTD. > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 11:31:12 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:31:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <02af01ce23ed$a5fb1540$f1f13fc0$@gmail.com> Bill, You have willfully ignored my comments concerning the issues below. Yes, for some purposes and specifically those concerning my normative positions in support of achieving the widest possible use of the Internet and particularly by otherwise marginalized or excluded populations I consider myself part of Civil Society and have widely presented myself as such. Yes, I think that the Internet SHOULD be made accessible and usable by all. For other purposes specifically those concerning my professional/academic/research activities in support of realizing the widest possible use of the internet and particularly by otherwise marginalized or excluded populations I consider myself a member of the wider technical and academic community also professionally concerned with these issues. Yes, I think that the Internet CAN be made accessible and usable by all. My comments to the Chair CSTD were in the context of my latter role and specifically where, in response to my request to be considered as a member of the WG EC on behalf of the T/A I was provided with a range of definitions and criteria concerning membership within that grouping none of which were presented as having any basis apart from "understandings" based on "checking" with "colleagues especially those who participated in the WSIS processes". Please note also that I have no interest in attempting to be a member of a group for which I am not appropriately qualified but nor am I willing to be arbitrarily excluded from a group exercising a public responsibility whose covenant is self-defined and non-transparently exclusionary. Further I would have no interest in pursuing my "non-selection" in a process for which the procedures and criteria were clear, transparent and even-handedly applied. Since I have still not received an answer to the question I posed to Ms. Bommelaer several days ago concerning the specific procedures employed in this nomination process and Ms. Bommelaer's reply (notably and discourteously to Ms. Esterhuysen rather to myself) concerning these matters i.e. "The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN" is clearly insufficiently transparent in the circumstances, I see no recourse but to make an appropriate representation directly to the Chair CTSD. In the further interests of transparency I am attaching a very lightly edited set of the correspondence specifically concerned with the selection process to which Ms. Bommalaer refers in her message to the IGC list. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: Hello Constance Hi Constance, ... I understand that you are the focal point for the Technical and Academic component of nominations for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I have an interest in presenting myself for nomination within the Academic component -- as an academic researcher in Community Informatics -- which has a specific concern for the grassroots/community uses of ICTs. As I believe you know, I have been quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus (and am going to be one of the speakers on behalf of Civil Society at the upcoming WSIS+10 review) but in this instance I would look to wear my most prominent "hat", and the one that I use for my day job which is that of an academic/researcher and it is that background, experience and perspective that I would look to bring to the proposed Working Group. Perhaps you could let me know what the procedures and deadlines are for nomination/self-nomination/endorsement etc. for this position. Also, if you are going to be at the WSIS+10 review and you think it worthwhile perhaps we could have a chat to discuss this. With best wishes, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:28 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I don't think that I heard back from you re: the process that should be followed concerning presentation of myself as an "academic" candidate. I have a number of people/groups waiting to send endorsements and I'm not sure who they should be sent to, if there is format that you prefer, deadlines and so on. I'm going to be quite busy for the next couple of weeks here in Europe I have a couple of academic events in the UK after this one so if I could hear back from you concerning the above asap that would be very useful. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:12 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Michael, I have checked with other colleagues especially those who participated in the WSIS processes. I understand that "the academic and technical communities" mentioned in the TAIS refers to the scientists who developed the Internet and the technical organizations/people who run it, and not to social scientists and the like. Would you consider approaching Anriette Esterhuysen who I believe is coordinating the Civil Society group? Best, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:12 AM To: Constance Bommelaer Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I could be wrong but I would have thought that the concern was to include the range of research expertise that has been involved in both the development and implementation of the Internet and I and a very large range of colleagues have worked in these areas from almost the very beginnings of Internet development. Certainly my research/academic colleagues in this area would see themselves as being in a position to make a positive contribution based on their research and academic activities and leaving the pursuit of more normative elements in these areas to where it properly belongs in Civil Society. So unless there is a formal decision that would restrict this I would very much prefer to have my candidacy reviewed in this category. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: your bio Hi Michael, Can you please send me your biography. I am currently compiling the list of interested individuals for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. I may end up with more candidates than seats but I am collecting expressions of interest at this stage. Thank you and best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Director, Public Policy The Internet Society www.isoc.org -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:01 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: your bio Hi Constance, I'll send you a brief bio and a full (if slightly out of date) academic resume. Best and thanks, M --------------------------------- On 3/5/13 9:26 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Constance, > > I'm just enquiring whether you have sufficient information from me to > proceed with your work as the focal point in the technical/academic > grouping. > > I'm also interested to know what your procedures will be with respect > to forwarding the names that have been brought forward. As you > perhaps know the IGC has had a formal nomcom process which has now > reported and I was wondering if you were undertaking a counterpart process? > > Best, > > Mike > -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:31 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hi Constance: Re: ECWG Hi Michael, Thank you for your note. I am currently compiling the list of expressions of interest I have received. The criteria used are: - Gender and geographic balance - Familiarity with the WSIS process - Ability to travel (no funding available) - Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group - Representing the technical and academic communities I will complete the process on Friday and get back to you then. Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:32 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: CSTD WG on EC Dear Michael, Thank you four your interest in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation nomination process. I have sent to the UN the names of all the individuals who have expressed an interest. However, I have not personally recommended your nomination as I felt other individuals met better the criteria. The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working Group. Thanks again for your interest and best regards, Constance Bommelaer -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Thank you for getting back Constance. In the interests of transparency would it be possible to indicate "the criteria" that you mention (in your note) as the basis on which your recommendation was made and also the names of those who you recommended to the Chair as more closely meeting those criteria. My colleagues I'm sure, will have an interest in this for future such opportunities. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:12 PM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, I haven't heard back from you and as the process is, I believe, moving forward on the UN side I do want to make sure that my 'nomination' was considered appropriately and within what I assume are the applicable procedures i.e. those that cover the selection from the various stakeholder groups to the MAG as made explicit in the report of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF. Transparency and accountability are, I'm sure we agree, necessary pre-conditions to an effective multi-stakeholder process hence my concern to ensure that this is realized in this instance as in others. Sincerely, Mike -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:18 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC Hi Michael, That is not what I said. All categories of stakeholders play an important role in developing accessibility to the Internet, the Civil Society, the Business community and the technical and academic community. Hence the importance of multi-stakeholderism. My interpretation of the technical and academic community includes individuals who have technically built the Internet. In addition, your leading and representation role within the Civil Society including at the WSIS+10 conference last February leads to some confusion. Did you also express an interest to represent the Civil Society in this process? Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, Thanks for the clarification and I understand your definition of "technically built the Internet", however, that isn't what was said nor based on your earlier comments is it I believe, a formal definition provided from the UN CTSD. Certainly, I have had a leading role in certain activities of Civil Society including WSIS +10, but similarly leading actors from the technical community have also had a representative role in Civil Society from time to time (Avri Doria comes immediately to mind) and as you know the technical community has and continues to play an extremely active role in the (civil society) Internet Governance Caucus. I think we must agree that the lines are somewhat fuzzy here. Further, at least on your initial criteria of "contributing to the building of the Internet" (which I think, at this time of a degree of technical "maturity" of the Internet, is perhaps an even more appropriate one), I would anticipate being highly commendable as a representative of the "technical/academic" community including to the WG on EC. In that context I would foresee speaking as an academic/researcher in the area of user issues concerning the Internet including making the Internet more accessible and particularly to those at the margins and in LDC's. But perhaps we have now exhausted this conversation, and since I don't foresee us reaching consensus on this perhaps, with your permission, we could send this correspondence to the Chair of the CTSD to adjudicate on the matter of the definition of what is meant by the "technical and academic" stakeholder group. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep. And so on.nothing adversarial? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 12:11:57 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:11:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreessen will share the £1m award. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 13:04:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:04:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <5146C778.7030404@itforchange.net> <56EDB285-D78F-4DBF-B591-082E573294EC@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <032601ce23fa$b8101160$28303420$@gmail.com> I should also point out that since Ms. Bommalaer's selection process was based at least in part on clearly incorrect information and related assumptions (for which no apology or retraction has yet been received), she herself should be withdrawing the results forwarded to the Chair CTSD and re-doing the process, most desireably based on rather more explicit and transparent procedures and criteria. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:31 AM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'William Drake' Subject: RE: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Bill, You have willfully ignored my comments concerning the issues below. Yes, for some purposes and specifically those concerning my normative positions in support of achieving the widest possible use of the Internet and particularly by otherwise marginalized or excluded populations I consider myself part of Civil Society and have widely presented myself as such. Yes, I think that the Internet SHOULD be made accessible and usable by all. For other purposes specifically those concerning my professional/academic/research activities in support of realizing the widest possible use of the internet and particularly by otherwise marginalized or excluded populations I consider myself a member of the wider technical and academic community also professionally concerned with these issues. Yes, I think that the Internet CAN be made accessible and usable by all. My comments to the Chair CSTD were in the context of my latter role and specifically where, in response to my request to be considered as a member of the WG EC on behalf of the T/A I was provided with a range of definitions and criteria concerning membership within that grouping none of which were presented as having any basis apart from "understandings" based on "checking" with "colleagues especially those who participated in the WSIS processes". Please note also that I have no interest in attempting to be a member of a group for which I am not appropriately qualified but nor am I willing to be arbitrarily excluded from a group exercising a public responsibility whose covenant is self-defined and non-transparently exclusionary. Further I would have no interest in pursuing my "non-selection" in a process for which the procedures and criteria were clear, transparent and even-handedly applied. Since I have still not received an answer to the question I posed to Ms. Bommelaer several days ago concerning the specific procedures employed in this nomination process and Ms. Bommelaer's reply (notably and discourteously to Ms. Esterhuysen rather to myself) concerning these matters i.e. "The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as with the UN" is clearly insufficiently transparent in the circumstances, I see no recourse but to make an appropriate representation directly to the Chair CTSD. In the further interests of transparency I am attaching a very lightly edited set of the correspondence specifically concerned with the selection process to which Ms. Bommalaer refers in her message to the IGC list. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: Hello Constance Hi Constance, ... I understand that you are the focal point for the Technical and Academic component of nominations for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I have an interest in presenting myself for nomination within the Academic component -- as an academic researcher in Community Informatics -- which has a specific concern for the grassroots/community uses of ICTs. As I believe you know, I have been quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus (and am going to be one of the speakers on behalf of Civil Society at the upcoming WSIS+10 review) but in this instance I would look to wear my most prominent "hat", and the one that I use for my day job which is that of an academic/researcher and it is that background, experience and perspective that I would look to bring to the proposed Working Group. Perhaps you could let me know what the procedures and deadlines are for nomination/self-nomination/endorsement etc. for this position. Also, if you are going to be at the WSIS+10 review and you think it worthwhile perhaps we could have a chat to discuss this. With best wishes, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:28 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I don't think that I heard back from you re: the process that should be followed concerning presentation of myself as an "academic" candidate. I have a number of people/groups waiting to send endorsements and I'm not sure who they should be sent to, if there is format that you prefer, deadlines and so on. I'm going to be quite busy for the next couple of weeks here in Europe I have a couple of academic events in the UK after this one so if I could hear back from you concerning the above asap that would be very useful. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:12 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Michael, I have checked with other colleagues especially those who participated in the WSIS processes. I understand that "the academic and technical communities" mentioned in the TAIS refers to the scientists who developed the Internet and the technical organizations/people who run it, and not to social scientists and the like. Would you consider approaching Anriette Esterhuysen who I believe is coordinating the Civil Society group? Best, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:12 AM To: Constance Bommelaer Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I could be wrong but I would have thought that the concern was to include the range of research expertise that has been involved in both the development and implementation of the Internet and I and a very large range of colleagues have worked in these areas from almost the very beginnings of Internet development. Certainly my research/academic colleagues in this area would see themselves as being in a position to make a positive contribution based on their research and academic activities and leaving the pursuit of more normative elements in these areas to where it properly belongs in Civil Society. So unless there is a formal decision that would restrict this I would very much prefer to have my candidacy reviewed in this category. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: your bio Hi Michael, Can you please send me your biography. I am currently compiling the list of interested individuals for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. I may end up with more candidates than seats but I am collecting expressions of interest at this stage. Thank you and best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Director, Public Policy The Internet Society www.isoc.org -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:01 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: your bio Hi Constance, I'll send you a brief bio and a full (if slightly out of date) academic resume. Best and thanks, M --------------------------------- On 3/5/13 9:26 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Constance, > > I'm just enquiring whether you have sufficient information from me to > proceed with your work as the focal point in the technical/academic > grouping. > > I'm also interested to know what your procedures will be with respect > to forwarding the names that have been brought forward. As you > perhaps know the IGC has had a formal nomcom process which has now > reported and I was wondering if you were undertaking a counterpart process? > > Best, > > Mike > -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:31 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hi Constance: Re: ECWG Hi Michael, Thank you for your note. I am currently compiling the list of expressions of interest I have received. The criteria used are: - Gender and geographic balance - Familiarity with the WSIS process - Ability to travel (no funding available) - Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group - Representing the technical and academic communities I will complete the process on Friday and get back to you then. Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:32 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: CSTD WG on EC Dear Michael, Thank you four your interest in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation nomination process. I have sent to the UN the names of all the individuals who have expressed an interest. However, I have not personally recommended your nomination as I felt other individuals met better the criteria. The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working Group. Thanks again for your interest and best regards, Constance Bommelaer -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Thank you for getting back Constance. In the interests of transparency would it be possible to indicate "the criteria" that you mention (in your note) as the basis on which your recommendation was made and also the names of those who you recommended to the Chair as more closely meeting those criteria. My colleagues I'm sure, will have an interest in this for future such opportunities. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:12 PM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, I haven't heard back from you and as the process is, I believe, moving forward on the UN side I do want to make sure that my 'nomination' was considered appropriately and within what I assume are the applicable procedures i.e. those that cover the selection from the various stakeholder groups to the MAG as made explicit in the report of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF. Transparency and accountability are, I'm sure we agree, necessary pre-conditions to an effective multi-stakeholder process hence my concern to ensure that this is realized in this instance as in others. Sincerely, Mike -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:18 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC Hi Michael, That is not what I said. All categories of stakeholders play an important role in developing accessibility to the Internet, the Civil Society, the Business community and the technical and academic community. Hence the importance of multi-stakeholderism. My interpretation of the technical and academic community includes individuals who have technically built the Internet. In addition, your leading and representation role within the Civil Society including at the WSIS+10 conference last February leads to some confusion. Did you also express an interest to represent the Civil Society in this process? Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, Thanks for the clarification and I understand your definition of "technically built the Internet", however, that isn't what was said nor based on your earlier comments is it I believe, a formal definition provided from the UN CTSD. Certainly, I have had a leading role in certain activities of Civil Society including WSIS +10, but similarly leading actors from the technical community have also had a representative role in Civil Society from time to time (Avri Doria comes immediately to mind) and as you know the technical community has and continues to play an extremely active role in the (civil society) Internet Governance Caucus. I think we must agree that the lines are somewhat fuzzy here. Further, at least on your initial criteria of "contributing to the building of the Internet" (which I think, at this time of a degree of technical "maturity" of the Internet, is perhaps an even more appropriate one), I would anticipate being highly commendable as a representative of the "technical/academic" community including to the WG on EC. In that context I would foresee speaking as an academic/researcher in the area of user issues concerning the Internet including making the Internet more accessible and particularly to those at the margins and in LDC's. But perhaps we have now exhausted this conversation, and since I don't foresee us reaching consensus on this perhaps, with your permission, we could send this correspondence to the Chair of the CTSD to adjudicate on the matter of the definition of what is meant by the "technical and academic" stakeholder group. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep. And so on.nothing adversarial? 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 soekpe at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 13:14:21 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:14:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations to our Great Fellows. All shall be rewarded as long as you keep the light burning. Bravo ! Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Mar 18, 2013 6:10 PM, "McTim" wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 13:14:45 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:14:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How lovely!! Congratulations. Deirdre On 18 March 2013 12:11, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > 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 > > -- “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 Mon Mar 18 13:15:11 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:15:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent news. Drinks on Louis :-) Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:11 AM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Mar 18 13:53:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:53:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue international recognition he deserves. fraternal regards --c.a. On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Mar 18 14:06:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:06:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> agreed. happy for him. and for the recording of Internet history. avri On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue international recognition he deserves. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >> >> >> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >> >> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 18 14:23:29 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 03:23:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> Message-ID: "But what about Louis Pouzin?" :-) Made who made it possible for others. Unique. Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > agreed. > > happy for him. > and for the recording of Internet history. > > avri > > On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue international recognition he deserves. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >>> >>> >>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >>> >>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 14:39:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:39:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Louis Pouzin! We celebrate your achievements and long deserved recognition. Thank you McTim for alerting the Caucus. Warm Regards, Sala On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/18/internet-pioneers-winners-engineering-prize > > > > "But what about Louis Pouzin?" > > :-) Made who made it possible for others. Unique. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > agreed. > > > > happy for him. > > and for the recording of Internet history. > > > > avri > > > > On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue > international recognition he deserves. > >> > >> fraternal regards > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: > >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > >>> > >>> > >>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > >>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > >>> > >>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > >>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 capdasiege at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 14:54:05 2013 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:54:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> Message-ID: Cher Dr Louis POUZIN, Toute notre équipe vous adresse ses vives félicitations et courages. Par cette distinction, vous honorez toute notre communauté de la société civile, bravo! Cordialement. -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - *Forum SMSI *du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse - *SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE* du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé Cameroun. *«Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et d**u phénomène de croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile**, quelles solutions pour des Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des Personnes et des Entreprises ? »* - * FGI du 21 au 25 novembre 2013 à Bali, Indonésie * CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 18 15:08:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:08:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <039701ce240b$ffce8d90$ff6ba8b0$@gmail.com> +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sonigitu Ekpe Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:14 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! Congratulations to our Great Fellows. All shall be rewarded as long as you keep the light burning. Bravo ! Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Mar 18, 2013 6:10 PM, "McTim" wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreessen will share the £1m award. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Mar 18 15:11:19 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:11:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca><686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> Message-ID: <296B242AE0AC46DDAD1643FFE8DF0FC8@Toshiba> Yes, good stuff, particularly the inclusion of Louis Pouzin and Tim Berners Lee, adding a more balanced perspective of what the Internet has become and its various points of origin. From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! Congratulations Louis Pouzin! We celebrate your achievements and long deserved recognition. Thank you McTim for alerting the Caucus. Warm Regards, Sala On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: "But what about Louis Pouzin?" :-) Made who made it possible for others. Unique. Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > agreed. > > happy for him. > and for the recording of Internet history. > > avri > > On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue international recognition he deserves. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >>> >>> >>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >>> >>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 16:39:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:09:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> Message-ID: <2A560ADA-1ED7-4515-8BAF-CCBD8C6B64AB@hserus.net> Congratulations to all, especially to Louis for long deserved recognition --srs (iPad) On 18-Mar-2013, at 23:53, Adam Peake wrote: > > > "But what about Louis Pouzin?" > > :-) Made who made it possible for others. Unique. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> agreed. >> >> happy for him. >> and for the recording of Internet history. >> >> avri >> >> On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue international recognition he deserves. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >>>> >>>> >>>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >>>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >>>> >>>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >>>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 19:43:47 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:43:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: <2A560ADA-1ED7-4515-8BAF-CCBD8C6B64AB@hserus.net> References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> <2A560ADA-1ED7-4515-8BAF-CCBD8C6B64AB@hserus.net> Message-ID: Felicidades a todos...un gran logro para la historia y para el Caucus *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/18 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Congratulations to all, especially to Louis for long deserved recognition > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Mar-2013, at 23:53, Adam Peake wrote: > > > < > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/18/internet-pioneers-winners-engineering-prize > > > > > > "But what about Louis Pouzin?" > > > > :-) Made who made it possible for others. Unique. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> agreed. > >> > >> happy for him. > >> and for the recording of Internet history. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 18 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> > >>> Slowly but surely my dear compa Dr Pouzin is getting the long overdue > international recognition he deserves. > >>> > >>> fraternal regards > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> On 03/18/2013 01:11 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > >>>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > >>>> > >>>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > >>>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 18 20:01:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:01:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Gurstein - Bommelaer Correspondence on WG on EC (amended) In-Reply-To: <04d401ce2432$46545620$d2fd0260$@gmail.com> References: <04d401ce2432$46545620$d2fd0260$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04e801ce2434$f9a236a0$ece6a3e0$@gmail.com> My apologies, I just noticed that a couple of key messages (one each--I've bolded them for easy reference) for March 12, were inadvertently not included in the sequence. I think with these additional messages the exchange (and the disagreement over definitions) is rather more coherent overall. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: Hello Constance Hi Constance, ... I understand that you are the focal point for the Technical and Academic component of nominations for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I have an interest in presenting myself for nomination within the Academic component -- as an academic researcher in Community Informatics -- which has a specific concern for the grassroots/community uses of ICTs. As I believe you know, I have been quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus (and am going to be one of the speakers on behalf of Civil Society at the upcoming WSIS+10 review) but in this instance I would look to wear my most prominent "hat", and the one that I use for my day job which is that of an academic/researcher and it is that background, experience and perspective that I would look to bring to the proposed Working Group. Perhaps you could let me know what the procedures and deadlines are for nomination/self-nomination/endorsement etc. for this position. Also, if you are going to be at the WSIS+10 review and you think it worthwhile perhaps we could have a chat to discuss this. With best wishes, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:28 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I don't think that I heard back from you re: the process that should be followed concerning presentation of myself as an "academic" candidate. I have a number of people/groups waiting to send endorsements and I'm not sure who they should be sent to, if there is format that you prefer, deadlines and so on. I'm going to be quite busy for the next couple of weeks here in Europe I have a couple of academic events in the UK after this one so if I could hear back from you concerning the above asap that would be very useful. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:12 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Michael, I have checked with other colleagues especially those who participated in the WSIS processes. I understand that "the academic and technical communities" mentioned in the TAIS refers to the scientists who developed the Internet and the technical organizations/people who run it, and not to social scientists and the like. Would you consider approaching Anriette Esterhuysen who I believe is coordinating the Civil Society group? Best, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:12 AM To: Constance Bommelaer Subject: Re: Hello Constance Hi Constance, I could be wrong but I would have thought that the concern was to include the range of research expertise that has been involved in both the development and implementation of the Internet and I and a very large range of colleagues have worked in these areas from almost the very beginnings of Internet development. Certainly my research/academic colleagues in this area would see themselves as being in a position to make a positive contribution based on their research and academic activities and leaving the pursuit of more normative elements in these areas to where it properly belongs in Civil Society. So unless there is a formal decision that would restrict this I would very much prefer to have my candidacy reviewed in this category. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: your bio Hi Michael, Can you please send me your biography. I am currently compiling the list of interested individuals for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. I may end up with more candidates than seats but I am collecting expressions of interest at this stage. Thank you and best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Director, Public Policy The Internet Society www.isoc.org -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:01 PM To: 'Constance Bommelaer' Subject: RE: your bio Hi Constance, I'll send you a brief bio and a full (if slightly out of date) academic resume. Best and thanks, M --------------------------------- On 3/5/13 9:26 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Constance, > > I'm just enquiring whether you have sufficient information from me to > proceed with your work as the focal point in the technical/academic > grouping. > > I'm also interested to know what your procedures will be with respect > to forwarding the names that have been brought forward. As you > perhaps know the IGC has had a formal nomcom process which has now > reported and I was wondering if you were undertaking a counterpart process? > > Best, > > Mike > -----Original Message----- From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:31 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: Hi Constance: Re: ECWG Hi Michael, Thank you for your note. I am currently compiling the list of expressions of interest I have received. The criteria used are: - Gender and geographic balance - Familiarity with the WSIS process - Ability to travel (no funding available) - Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group - Representing the technical and academic communities I will complete the process on Friday and get back to you then. Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:32 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: CSTD WG on EC Dear Michael, Thank you four your interest in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation nomination process. I have sent to the UN the names of all the individuals who have expressed an interest. However, I have not personally recommended your nomination as I felt other individuals met better the criteria. The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working Group. Thanks again for your interest and best regards, Constance Bommelaer -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:02 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Thank you for getting back Constance. In the interests of transparency would it be possible to indicate "the criteria" that you mention (in your note) as the basis on which your recommendation was made and also the names of those who you recommended to the Chair as more closely meeting those criteria. My colleagues I'm sure, will have an interest in this for future such opportunities. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:12 PM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, I haven't heard back from you and as the process is, I believe, moving forward on the UN side I do want to make sure that my 'nomination' was considered appropriately and within what I assume are the applicable procedures i.e. those that cover the selection from the various stakeholder groups to the MAG as made explicit in the report of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF. Transparency and accountability are, I'm sure we agree, necessary pre-conditions to an effective multi-stakeholder process hence my concern to ensure that this is realized in this instance as in others. Sincerely, Mike -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:15 PM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC Hi Michael, Multi-stakeholderism is absolutely critical and I believe we share this view. The criteria used are those that I have sent you in a previous note. They have not changed and they were communicated to the UN: - gender and geographical balance; - familiarity with the WSIS process; - ability to travel (no funding); - ability and willingness to dedicate some time to the working group; - representing the technical and academic community. Consultations were led and I have also talked to many individuals from Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal points). My interpretation of the "technical and academic community" includes the academics who have contributed to building the Internet. You are widely recognized as an active (and excellent) leader of the Civil Society and I also note that at the WSIS+10 conference hosted by UNESCO end of February, you spoke as a representative and leader of Civil Society. This leads to some confusion. I fully recognize and appreciate your skills and hope you have expressed your interest to represent the Civil Society. Finally, please note that I have not nominated individuals in this process as I was solely requested to make recommendations. I have also informed the UN of all individuals who have expressed an interest for purpose of transparency. The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working Group. Best regards, Constance -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:38:48 -0700 From: michael gurstein To: Thanks Constance... Do I understand you to be saying in your criteria below that those such as myself and my colleagues who have been working to ensure that the Internet is accessible and usable by all are not "contributing to building the Internet" and is this definition one that has been agreed to by the UN/CSTD? M -----Original Message----- From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:18 AM To: michael gurstein Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC Hi Michael, That is not what I said. All categories of stakeholders play an important role in developing accessibility to the Internet, the Civil Society, the Business community and the technical and academic community. Hence the importance of multi-stakeholderism. My interpretation of the technical and academic community includes individuals who have technically built the Internet. In addition, your leading and representation role within the Civil Society including at the WSIS+10 conference last February leads to some confusion. Did you also express an interest to represent the Civil Society in this process? Best regards, Constance -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48 AM To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org' Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC Hi Constance, Thanks for the clarification and I understand your definition of "technically built the Internet", however, that isn't what was said nor based on your earlier comments is it I believe, a formal definition provided from the UN CTSD. Certainly, I have had a leading role in certain activities of Civil Society including WSIS +10, but similarly leading actors from the technical community have also had a representative role in Civil Society from time to time (Avri Doria comes immediately to mind) and as you know the technical community has and continues to play an extremely active role in the (civil society) Internet Governance Caucus. I think we must agree that the lines are somewhat fuzzy here. Further, at least on your initial criteria of "contributing to the building of the Internet" (which I think, at this time of a degree of technical "maturity" of the Internet, is perhaps an even more appropriate one), I would anticipate being highly commendable as a representative of the "technical/academic" community including to the WG on EC. In that context I would foresee speaking as an academic/researcher in the area of user issues concerning the Internet including making the Internet more accessible and particularly to those at the margins and in LDC's. But perhaps we have now exhausted this conversation, and since I don't foresee us reaching consensus on this perhaps, with your permission, we could send this correspondence to the Chair of the CTSD to adjudicate on the matter of the definition of what is meant by the "technical and academic" stakeholder group. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep. And so on.nothing adversarial? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 22:00:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:30:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two > coordinators. In my experience. Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic about requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those who recently managed the very public process of appointing members of an important public body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... parminder > > Adam > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from >>> discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach >>> consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think most >>> of us who have been coordinators attempted that. >> I agree that helping the Caucus (or any group for that matter) reach >> consensus is not possible while at the same time vigorously arguing >> a viewpoint that has turned out to be controversial. >> >> It is good that the Caucus has two coordinators. So it should be >> possible for either of the coordinators to recuse him- or herself >> from exercising the coordinator role with regard to any particular >> topic on which he or she has (what turns out to be) controversial >> views, and feels strongly about them. >> >> Sala, would be possible for you to handle the consensus process(es) >> regarding the issue about representation of communities of non-technical >> academics in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation? >> >> This would in particular include the consensus process for the proposed >> letter to the Chair of the CSTD. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 18 22:06:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 03:06:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: <296B242AE0AC46DDAD1643FFE8DF0FC8@Toshiba> References: <514754A9.5050307@cafonso.ca> <686C5FAA-D4A6-40D1-80FD-3F70D72B1AB2@acm.org> <296B242AE0AC46DDAD1643FFE8DF0FC8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20130319030600.451db42b@quill.bollow.ch> Ian Peter wrote: > Yes, good stuff, particularly the inclusion of Louis Pouzin and Tim > Berners Lee, adding a more balanced perspective of what the Internet > has become and its various points of origin. +1 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 22:07:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:37:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5147C875.9020000@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 09:41 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > Such a good news about our Louis. Congrats. So, there is this still hope in the world that if history can be distorted it can also be reclaimed :) ..... 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 22:08:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:38:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net> <5146E6D0.2080400@itforchange.net> <514714A2.5000802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5147C884.3090403@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 07:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 18-Mar-2013, at 18:50, parminder wrote: > >> On Monday 18 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> When CSTD appointed the focal points and gave them guidelines (see >>> attached), Constance Bommelaer was appointed "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC >>> COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT" (caps from the original document, not mine.) >> Yes, that's why we plan to write to CSTD Chair. Entirely consistent. > We, as in you, and some other members of the list, in their personal capacities I hope. The proposal is for the IGC is to send the letter seeking clarifications etc to the CSTD chair. > I have absolutely no intention of signing the draft that was just circulated and would object to it being forwarded as from the IG Caucus. Your dissent is noted... parminder > > > --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 18 23:04:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:04:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Civil Society Caucus must be able to speak out on human rights issues In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130319040406.70dfe729@quill.bollow.ch> Hi Adam and all It certainly does not work to demand of someone who cares about human rights, as a matter of conscience, to stop caring about them whenever a concrete human rights issue comes up. It would be highly inappropriate for any organization to demand that of any office holder. When human rights issues become concrete, speaking up about them is always to some extent controversial (except in the context of specialized human rights advocacy groups), because there will always be potential damage to relationships etc. Of course I'm not demanding that the Caucus must always agree with my views on human rights matters. If there are disagreement/"lack of consensus" problems only occasionally and/or only for a small part of what is expected of a coordinator, recusal will work. But if it should happen that a Civil Society Caucus should get into a pattern of again and again not being able to speak out, in a timely manner, about concrete human rights issues (that are inconvenient for some particular stakeholder group for which some of us have sympathies), that would in my eyes be a serious problem. Please let's make sure to avoid that kind of dysfunctional Caucus where "consensus" and "working together" is in practice valued higher than the internationally accepted human rights. Greetings, Norbert Adam Peake wrote: > I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two > coordinators. In my experience. > > Adam > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from > >> discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach > >> consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think > >> most of us who have been coordinators attempted that. > > > > I agree that helping the Caucus (or any group for that matter) reach > > consensus is not possible while at the same time vigorously arguing > > a viewpoint that has turned out to be controversial. > > > > It is good that the Caucus has two coordinators. So it should be > > possible for either of the coordinators to recuse him- or herself > > from exercising the coordinator role with regard to any particular > > topic on which he or she has (what turns out to be) controversial > > views, and feels strongly about them. > > > > Sala, would be possible for you to handle the consensus process(es) > > regarding the issue about representation of communities of > > non-technical academics in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > > Cooperation? > > > > This would in particular include the consensus process for the > > proposed letter to the Chair of the CSTD. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 23:17:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:47:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5EB6EA98-3491-4674-8555-E9E087C67C9E@hserus.net> It is because he cares about process and propriety that he is not taking this group headlong into conflict with other civil society organizations, and nor is he going to split hairs and pettifog about these, to no apparent benefit except for possibly a desire to play divisive politics. No, you won't get group consensus - if you wish you can form a rump caucus (and it WILL be a tiny splinter rump given the very few people I have seen supporting your viewpoint) and go off to send whatever letter to whoever - but representing that caucus, not the larger community here. I suspect I am not the only one here who categorically opposes sending such letters. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 7:30, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >> coordinators. In my experience. > > Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic about requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those who recently managed the very public process of appointing members of an important public body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... > > parminder >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> I think as coordinator it's best if you take a step back from >>>> discussions. You will find it easier to help the caucus reach >>>> consensus if you are not personally involved. At least I think most >>>> of us who have been coordinators attempted that. >>> I agree that helping the Caucus (or any group for that matter) reach >>> consensus is not possible while at the same time vigorously arguing >>> a viewpoint that has turned out to be controversial. >>> >>> It is good that the Caucus has two coordinators. So it should be >>> possible for either of the coordinators to recuse him- or herself >>> from exercising the coordinator role with regard to any particular >>> topic on which he or she has (what turns out to be) controversial >>> views, and feels strongly about them. >>> >>> Sala, would be possible for you to handle the consensus process(es) >>> regarding the issue about representation of communities of non-technical >>> academics in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation? >>> >>> This would in particular include the consensus process for the proposed >>> letter to the Chair of the CSTD. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 23:24:29 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:24:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >> coordinators. In my experience. > > > Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, that does > it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic about > requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those who recently > managed the very public process It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). of appointing members of an important public > body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in glass houses....." FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions on other SGs. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 23:27:31 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:57:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> Message-ID: <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it > is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the > multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing > such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward > looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best > practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. > > > Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. Second should be a workshop on /*'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies'*/ . Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of /*'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet'*/ . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals parminder > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >> >> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >> letter to anyone. >> >> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >> objectives here. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> snipping... >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>> >>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>> logical to put them together. >> >> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >> >> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >> settings, but that's another conversation. >> >>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >> >> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >> remains valid. >>> >>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >> >> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >> it could be worth a try. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 18 23:40:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:10:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5147DE11.1080804@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 08:54 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >>> coordinators. In my experience. >> >> Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, that does >> it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic about >> requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those who recently >> managed the very public process > It was hardly public, 'public' as in related to public matters, not as in full public view..... although the two concepts should be closely connected, which is what I am arguing for. > and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). > > > of appointing members of an important public >> body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... > I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in > glass houses....." Woe betide a civil society group that desists from raising questions about public processes simply becuase it has its own skeletons to hide. It is shameful to even mention it. McTim, if you have issues with the CS selection process, please mention these issues here. I for one am sure to join the discussion. Please be explicit. But dont tell us that since we have things to hide ourselves we should not ask questions from other public actors. In that case we can as well shut this IGC up. What a logic??!! parminder > > FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions > on other SGs. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 18 23:46:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:46:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <057901ce2454$5f032ee0$1d098ca0$@gmail.com> So, the issue now is nobody wants to hurt ISOC's feelings :(... complete BS of course... but that is the story that Constance peddled and Anriette picked up and moved along... The other story, what is just and proper doesn't seem to have as much resonance (among a bunch of milquetoasts... and the real story which is about arrogance and power which is "my" story is too strong for anyone to deal with much... Not sure I see anyway to do much about this ... My suggestion is to at this point just wait... whatever will happen will happen and I'm not sure that we can do much to make it happen at this point... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >> coordinators. In my experience. > > > Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, > that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic > about requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those > who recently managed the very public process It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). of appointing members of an important public > body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in glass houses....." FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions on other SGs. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 23:51:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:21:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5147DE11.1080804@itforchange.net> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> <5147DE11.1080804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: If you think there are process issues here - raise them here. Sort them out here. Pointing at process issues elsewhere is hypocritical to the extreme when we have our own such issues to sort out. McTim is right. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 9:10, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 08:54 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: >>> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >>>> coordinators. In my experience. >>> >>> Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, that does >>> it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic about >>> requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those who recently >>> managed the very public process >> It was hardly public, > > 'public' as in related to public matters, not as in full public view..... although the two concepts should be closely connected, which is what I am arguing for. > >> and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). >> >> >> of appointing members of an important public >>> body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... >> I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in >> glass houses....." > > Woe betide a civil society group that desists from raising questions about public processes simply becuase it has its own skeletons to hide. It is shameful to even mention it. McTim, if you have issues with the CS selection process, please mention these issues here. I for one am sure to join the discussion. Please be explicit. But dont tell us that since we have things to hide ourselves we should not ask questions from other public actors. In that case we can as well shut this IGC up. What a logic??!! > > parminder >> >> FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions >> on other SGs. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 18 23:54:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:24:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> I fully support the third proposal. For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >> >> >> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > >> >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >> >> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >> SGs about how to improve processes. >> >> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >> >> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >> could also discuss the categorisation of these >> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >>> >>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >>> letter to anyone. >>> >>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >>> objectives here. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>> >>> Hi Parminder >>> >>> snipping... >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>>> >>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>>> logical to put them together. >>> >>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >>> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >>> >>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >>> settings, but that's another conversation. >>> >>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >>> >>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >>> remains valid. >>>> >>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >>> >>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >>> it could be worth a try. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 19 01:03:27 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:03:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: <7904362F-FDBE-4EE6-BFD9-B3677CE38331@ciroap.org> Support all three (excuse brevity, replying by phone). -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' On 19 Mar, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I fully support the third proposal. > > For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. > > As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >>> >>> >>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? >> >> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. >> >> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals >> >> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. >> >> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . >> >> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. >> >> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >>> >>> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >>> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >>> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >>> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >>> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >>> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >>> SGs about how to improve processes. >>> >>> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >>> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >>> >>> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >>> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >>> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >>> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >>> could also discuss the categorisation of these >>> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >>> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >>>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >>>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >>>> >>>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >>>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >>>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >>>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >>>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >>>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >>>> letter to anyone. >>>> >>>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >>>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >>>> objectives here. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >>>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>>> >>>> Hi Parminder >>>> >>>> snipping... >>>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>>>> >>>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>>>> logical to put them together. >>>> >>>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >>>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >>>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >>>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >>>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >>>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >>>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >>>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >>>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >>>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >>>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >>>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >>>> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >>>> >>>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >>>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >>>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >>>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >>>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >>>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >>>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >>>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >>>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >>>> settings, but that's another conversation. >>>> >>>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >>>> >>>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >>>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >>>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >>>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >>>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >>>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >>>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >>>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >>>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >>>> remains valid. >>>>> >>>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >>>> >>>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >>>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >>>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >>>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >>>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >>>> it could be worth a try. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 19 01:25:24 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:25:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <7904362F-FDBE-4EE6-BFD9-B3677CE38331@ciroap.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <7904362F-FDBE-4EE6-BFD9-B3677CE38331@ciroap.org> Message-ID: yes, all three, and there is every indication both business and technical/academic communities will join us on (2) From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Support all three (excuse brevity, replying by phone). -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' On 19 Mar, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I fully support the third proposal. For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals parminder Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like dropping involvement on this issue altogether. But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining letter to anyone. Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our objectives here. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder snipping... On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net wrote: but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. Best Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 19 01:35:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:35:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I fully support the third proposal. > > For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too > vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of > evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got > itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that > includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and > deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. > > As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this > thread. > Hi, I disagree. Workshop, as Anriette proposed, working with Business and Tech/Academic would be good. On the other two topcis: would be good to see text proposed and discussed so the coordinators can announce the text 48hours before the deadline and decide if there's consensus or not. Hope other proposals will also be made. On issue of work of the caucus. We are again up against a deadline and only now beginning to discuss issues that will to some extent shape the caucus' involvement on the IGF for the rest of the year. Which is one reason we need coordinators to coordinate and not get stuck in the weeds of our disagreements. They need to be reminding us of deadlines, facilitating discussion. The submission made to the consultation last month was very poor: contradictory, not in anyway a consensus document, did not follow the processes in the charter. It's bad process to force issues through at the last minute. Adam > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is > well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the > multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a > workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards > development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than > attempts to interpret past writings. > > > Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked > for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for > it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our > submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the > 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without > much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) > stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was > proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the > Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings > used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, > and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' > . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more > pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have > a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops > proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection > of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the > 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just > triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of > 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very > logical to put them together. > > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. > Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. > > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and > seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to > be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role > entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to > be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 01:41:33 2013 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:41:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. Message-ID: Congratulations to all the remarkable people who have all contributed in their own ways to make this world a better place. Gideon Rop. On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 19 01:47:13 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:47:13 +1100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas suggestions were Objectives 1.. Highlight lessons learned in MSism 2.. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion 3.. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation 4.. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward 5.. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate 6.. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. Nnenna also suggested Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place. To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better workshop. And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals parminder Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like dropping involvement on this issue altogether. But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining letter to anyone. Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our objectives here. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder snipping... On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net wrote: but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. Best Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 19 02:15:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:45:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: <29FF3EB1-C46B-4D49-9986-0987CA4DA690@hserus.net> A workshop would be good - if the current extremely divisive feelings are ironed out beforehand and we start to look at a way forward. It'd erupt into an ugly fight indeed, either in the panel or on the floor, given by previous list traffic, if we are not careful. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 11:05, Adam Peake wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> I fully support the third proposal. >> >> For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too >> vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of >> evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got >> itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that >> includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and >> deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. >> >> As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this >> thread. > > Hi, > > I disagree. Workshop, as Anriette proposed, working with Business and > Tech/Academic would be good. > > On the other two topcis: would be good to see text proposed and > discussed so the coordinators can announce the text 48hours before the > deadline and decide if there's consensus or not. > > Hope other proposals will also be made. > > On issue of work of the caucus. We are again up against a deadline > and only now beginning to discuss issues that will to some extent > shape the caucus' involvement on the IGF for the rest of the year. > > Which is one reason we need coordinators to coordinate and not get > stuck in the weeds of our disagreements. They need to be reminding us > of deadlines, facilitating discussion. > > The submission made to the consultation last month was very poor: > contradictory, not in anyway a consensus document, did not follow the > processes in the charter. > > It's bad process to force issues through at the last minute. > > Adam > > > > > >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is >> well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the >> multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a >> workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards >> development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than >> attempts to interpret past writings. >> >> >> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? >> >> >> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked >> for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for >> it. >> >> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals >> >> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our >> submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the >> 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without >> much ado. >> >> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) >> stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . >> >> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was >> proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the >> Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings >> used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, >> and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' >> . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more >> pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have >> a workshop on this question. >> >> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops >> proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection >> of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >> >> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >> SGs about how to improve processes. >> >> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >> >> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >> could also discuss the categorisation of these >> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >> >> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >> letter to anyone. >> >> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >> objectives here. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> snipping... >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >> >> >> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >> logical to put them together. >> >> >> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >> >> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >> settings, but that's another conversation. >> >> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >> >> >> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >> remains valid. >> >> >> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >> >> >> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >> it could be worth a try. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 02:18:28 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:18:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of > comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna > earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, > I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. > Thanks Ian - I was just about to do that. Thank you for saving me the effort. > > But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg > “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas > suggestions were > > Objectives > > 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism > 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion > 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder > representation > 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward > 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate > 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. > > Nnenna also suggested > > Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, > discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of > discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And > drafting can take place. > > To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably > even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. > While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and > discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding > these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better > workshop. > > And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is > well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the > multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a > workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards > development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than > attempts to interpret past writings. > > > Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have > asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else > for it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our > submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the > 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without > much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on *'Modalities for selection of (non gov) > stakeholder representatives for public bodies'* . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was > was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of > the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the > wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of *'how traditional telecom > regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to > the Internet'* . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there > could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, > well I propose we have a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops > proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the > 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just > triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of > 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very > logical to put them together. > > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. > Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. > > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and > seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to > be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role > entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to > be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 19 02:50:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:20:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 11:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of > comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna > earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise > this, I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. > But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg > “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Dear Ian I will go with what you say on this. But on a larger point. I think civil society needs to take stock about what is happening in the IGF and outside and its role in it. IGF is close to 10 years old: it hasnt done one useful thing till now. (I know there will be a lot dissenting voices about how it has helped people hold hands and all that, but for the sake of people we represent and whose monies we often use to attend IGF etc, lets get a bit real here.) Even governments, esp developing country ones, have been aghast at what happens (doesnt happen) at the IGFs, and have mostly disengaged. (unlike earlier times they - developing country governments - are either not in MAG meetings and if they do come, do nothing). And the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, despite various counter-attempts by status quosits did end up insisting - for God's stake get on and do something - and suggested that /we focus on clear policy question, and have outcomes that pull together clear response to such policy questions/.... And here civil society is not ready to ask a clear specific question and seek responses to it, to possibly get some forward movement. What is wrong with directly going to the point and discussing 'modalities for non gov stakeholder selection' when we know that is /the/ issue. We all know what blah blah will otherwise consume the 90 minutes that we have. Why are we becoming so soft - does that behove civil society, who is supposed to be struggling against all odds for those who really cant make it to the spaces where decisions about their lives are being taken. I am reminded what my colleage Anita said in her closing address at WSIS plus ten and I quote "Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here." And, Ian, I remember you response to her speech; "Great speech by Anita. Glad someone actually said something for a change!" IGF has become a space for making a big show of 'not saying anything'. And as civil society group we need to break that pattern and not contribute to it. The recent discussion shows that we may be becoming too soft, getting into discussion of good manner, behaviour niceties, careful use of words, and not hurting others and so on (which are all of course important in their due place) and forgetting what hard political realities these soft talks cover up. Hard realities that matter to the real lives of real people. Our main alligiance is to them, not to the forces of status quo. (Sorry, it is becoming a speech, and I really am no longer addressing it to you, Ian, so much as speaking generally :) ) I think we are loosing our focus, and we need to do a real rethink about where we are as civil, whom we represent, what are achieving and so on. And exactly as Anita warned us - /multistakeholderism is becoming our framework of legitimisation and not really just of engagement/. BTW, in the same speech she also referred to Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness '. I greatly encourage everyone to read it, and one would get a good picture of what is happening in the IGF, and even here, right now, all this multistakeholder cosying up, and giving a bad name to those who but dare say, 'well, yes but......'. parminder > Nnennas suggestions were > Objectives > > 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism > 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion > 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder > representation > 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward > 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate > 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. > > Nnenna also suggested > Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, > discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming > together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder > groups. And drafting can take place. > To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably > even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other > stakeholders. While I realise some people here would prefer a more > direct reference and discussion on recent issues, I think a broader > approach, while not avoiding these issues, is both pragmatic and also > likely to lead to a better workshop. > And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it >> is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the >> multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing >> such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward >> looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best >> practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >> >> >> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have > asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere > else for it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our > submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the > 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal > without much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on /*'Modalities for selection of (non > gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies'*/ . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea > was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas > Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not > clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of /*'how > traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and > institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet'*/ . Having > witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more > pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose > we have a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting > workshops proposals is online now at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > >> >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >> >> >> Dear all >> >> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >> >> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >> SGs about how to improve processes. >> >> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >> >> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >> could also discuss the categorisation of these >> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >>> >>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >>> letter to anyone. >>> >>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >>> objectives here. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>> >>> Hi Parminder >>> >>> snipping... >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >>> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>>> >>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>>> logical to put them together. >>> >>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >>> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >>> >>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >>> settings, but that's another conversation. >>> >>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >>> >>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >>> remains valid. >>>> >>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >>> >>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >>> it could be worth a try. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 03:19:49 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:19:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51481195.6000907@apc.org> Dear all Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included and built on Nnenna's suggestions. Anriette Proposed title: "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the CSTD WG on EC. The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder processes 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups are defined and represented 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss possible principles to work from 4. Propose working methods for going forward 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working document to the CSTD WG on EC. Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open consultation to have a face to face 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 19 03:29:32 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:29:32 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <82EA324553364E8C87D8709BEABB5C36@Toshiba> yes, i really liked Anita’s speech, Parminder, and particularly the quote you include below. But I don’t see the point in organising a workshop 9 months hence that concentrates solely on one specific question of representation, or even just on the processes of selection by stakeholder groups. It could well be that this specific issue is resolved by then – but whether that is the case or not I would like to see broader issues and principles discussed as I think that is more likely to lead to useful outcomes. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:50 PM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Re: Workshop Proposals - a few days to go On Tuesday 19 March 2013 11:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Dear Ian I will go with what you say on this. But on a larger point. I think civil society needs to take stock about what is happening in the IGF and outside and its role in it. IGF is close to 10 years old: it hasnt done one useful thing till now. (I know there will be a lot dissenting voices about how it has helped people hold hands and all that, but for the sake of people we represent and whose monies we often use to attend IGF etc, lets get a bit real here.) Even governments, esp developing country ones, have been aghast at what happens (doesnt happen) at the IGFs, and have mostly disengaged. (unlike earlier times they - developing country governments - are either not in MAG meetings and if they do come, do nothing). And the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, despite various counter-attempts by status quosits did end up insisting - for God's stake get on and do something - and suggested that we focus on clear policy question, and have outcomes that pull together clear response to such policy questions.... And here civil society is not ready to ask a clear specific question and seek responses to it, to possibly get some forward movement. What is wrong with directly going to the point and discussing 'modalities for non gov stakeholder selection' when we know that is the issue. We all know what blah blah will otherwise consume the 90 minutes that we have. Why are we becoming so soft - does that behove civil society, who is supposed to be struggling against all odds for those who really cant make it to the spaces where decisions about their lives are being taken. I am reminded what my colleage Anita said in her closing address at WSIS plus ten and I quote "Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here." And, Ian, I remember you response to her speech; "Great speech by Anita. Glad someone actually said something for a change!" IGF has become a space for making a big show of 'not saying anything'. And as civil society group we need to break that pattern and not contribute to it. The recent discussion shows that we may be becoming too soft, getting into discussion of good manner, behaviour niceties, careful use of words, and not hurting others and so on (which are all of course important in their due place) and forgetting what hard political realities these soft talks cover up. Hard realities that matter to the real lives of real people. Our main alligiance is to them, not to the forces of status quo. (Sorry, it is becoming a speech, and I really am no longer addressing it to you, Ian, so much as speaking generally :) ) I think we are loosing our focus, and we need to do a real rethink about where we are as civil, whom we represent, what are achieving and so on. And exactly as Anita warned us - multistakeholderism is becoming our framework of legitimisation and not really just of engagement. BTW, in the same speech she also referred to Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. I greatly encourage everyone to read it, and one would get a good picture of what is happening in the IGF, and even here, right now, all this multistakeholder cosying up, and giving a bad name to those who but dare say, 'well, yes but......'. parminder Nnennas suggestions were Objectives 1.. Highlight lessons learned in MSism 2.. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion 3.. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation 4.. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward 5.. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate 6.. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. Nnenna also suggested Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place. To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better workshop. And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals parminder Ian -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Dear all I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental SGs about how to improve processes. My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We could also discuss the categorisation of these constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. Anriette On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like dropping involvement on this issue altogether. But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining letter to anyone. Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our objectives here. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC Hi Parminder snipping... On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net wrote: but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put them together. So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see themselves that way and feel they are CS. Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some settings, but that's another conversation. So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid. If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try. Best Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 19 03:35:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:05:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51481195.6000907@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> Message-ID: <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> Anriette This is fine with me, as long as the facilitator leads a real purposeful dialogue, and we move towards codifying guidelines and processes. BTW, I am not sue how enhanced cooperation (EC) falls within a dialogue on MS processes. I would think that MS processes should be discussed within EC talk. EC is about global public policy making, and it requires due multi stakeholder processes to be involved in the process. That part is a bit odd. parminder On Tuesday 19 March 2013 12:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included and > built on Nnenna's suggestions. > > Anriette > > Proposed title: > > "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and > transparency in MS processes" > > Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used > to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency > groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of > organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. > > The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the CSTD WG on EC. > > The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > > > 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder > processes > > 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder > groups are defined and represented > > 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > possible principles to work from > > 4. Propose working methods for going forward > > 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working > document to the CSTD WG on EC. > > > Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build > up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate > such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open > consultation to have a face to face 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 19 04:11:20 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:11:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I support this. Good enough for this preliminary stage. There's opportunity to improve it (but according to the guidelines not change the topic significantly, but think there's scope for discussion when we have more time). And to seek support from the two other non-govt stakeholders: have both seen it? Think they might have been cc'd on the original thread. If it seems ok, then the coordinators can put as the first for the 48 hour agreed text process. Adam On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included and > built on Nnenna's suggestions. > > Anriette > > Proposed title: > > "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and > transparency in MS processes" > > Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three non-governmental > stakeholder groups in the IGF and used > to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice > approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency > groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community and > the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of > organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. > > The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the > CSTD WG on EC. > > The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on > the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > > > 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder > processes > > 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder > groups are defined and represented > > 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > possible principles to work from > > 4. Propose working methods for going forward > > 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working > document to the CSTD WG on EC. > > > Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build > up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate > such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open > consultation to have a face to face 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 19 04:22:43 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:22:43 +1100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org><74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net><5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net><131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba><51463D97.1010503@apc.org><5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net><1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba><51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net><51481195.6000907@apc.org><51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <310C7983927C49699AB6B6C52DF6A094@Toshiba> yes I support as is, given we will be able to refine later on From: Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:11 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go I support this. Good enough for this preliminary stage. There's opportunity to improve it (but according to the guidelines not change the topic significantly, but think there's scope for discussion when we have more time). And to seek support from the two other non-govt stakeholders: have both seen it? Think they might have been cc'd on the original thread. If it seems ok, then the coordinators can put as the first for the 48 hour agreed text process. Adam On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included and built on Nnenna's suggestions. Anriette Proposed title: "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the CSTD WG on EC. The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder processes 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups are defined and represented 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss possible principles to work from 4. Propose working methods for going forward 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working document to the CSTD WG on EC. Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 04:27:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:27:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 IGF workshop proposals (was Re: COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter...) In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130319092734.7a1afdef@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Adam Peake wrote: > On the other two topcis: would be good to see text proposed and > discussed so the coordinators can announce the text 48hours before the > deadline and decide if there's consensus or not. Sure we can do it that way if desired. Besides proposal text, each proposal also needs at least one volunteer willing to do the work of actually organizing it. Alternatively, workshop proposals can also be handled without formal consensus process simply on the basis of informal discussions (or even without them) and someone submitting a preliminary workshop proposal on the IGF website. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 04:42:17 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:42:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51481195.6000907@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> Deal all Anriette's proposal looks very good to me. If this is agreeable to all who are concerned, including in particular Anriette and the IGC, I'd volunteer to serve as co-organizer on behalf of the IGC. Greetings, Norbert Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included > and built on Nnenna's suggestions. > > Anriette > > Proposed title: > > "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability > and transparency in MS processes" > > Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three > non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share > experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice > approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these > constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of > the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from > having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists > and analysts. > > The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to > the CSTD WG on EC. > > The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building > on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > > > 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder > processes > > 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder > groups are defined and represented > > 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > possible principles to work from > > 4. Propose working methods for going forward > > 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working > document to the CSTD WG on EC. > > > Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the > build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to > initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the > next IGF open consultation to have a face to face 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 04:42:33 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:42:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> Message-ID: <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> Dear all In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for this working group before I released the names of the candidates. By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 names. Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in preselecting the IGC nominees. The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) Avri Doria (N America) Carlos Afonso (A America) Don McClean (N America) Grace Githaiga (Africa) Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) William Drake (Europe) I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. Best regards Anriette On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > Enhanced Cooperation* > > *Background* > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > that know them and that have worked with them. > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > convenor of the group. > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > of the period that we had to do our work. > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > *Nominees* > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > first in case they have any objection to this. > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > requirement in the call for nominations. > > *Scoring process* > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy > processes. > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > conflicting interests. > > > *Shortlist* > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > regional and gender balance. > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure > yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that > the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated > themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, > there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through > participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from > the broader internet community. > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD_WG_EC_Final_Nominees.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44884 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 04:48:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:48:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > If it seems ok, then the coordinators can put as the first for the 48 > hour agreed text process. Anriette, maybe you could quickly clarify - does the past tense "proposed" imply that have you already submitted this at the IGF website? If not, what's your view on Adam's suggestion to use this text as the starting point for an IGC consensus process? Greetings, Norbert > On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included > > and built on Nnenna's suggestions. > > > > Anriette > > > > Proposed title: > > > > "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability > > and transparency in MS processes" > > > > Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three > > non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used > > to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > > practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these > > constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of > > the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from > > having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists > > and analysts. > > > > The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to > > the CSTD WG on EC. > > > > The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows > > (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > > > > > > 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in > > multi-stakeholder processes > > > > 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder > > groups are defined and represented > > > > 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > > transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > > possible principles to work from > > > > 4. Propose working methods for going forward > > > > 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a > > working document to the CSTD WG on EC. > > > > > > Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the > > build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to > > initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the > > next IGF open consultation to have a face to face 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 04:49:11 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:49:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51482687.6030408@apc.org> Oh one additional thing.. we should formulate a policy question which the workshop addresses. Or rephrase the title as a question. Parminder, I think there are different interpretations of what the scope of EC is, but irrespective of what definition one supports, I think that learning around process and transparency and accountability could be of value to the WG in some way or other. Great that Norbert is willing to co-organise on behalf of the IGC. APC can help if needed, but I think there will be lots of others who are also keen. Anriette On 19/03/2013 10:42, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Deal all > > Anriette's proposal looks very good to me. If this is agreeable to all > who are concerned, including in particular Anriette and the IGC, I'd > volunteer to serve as co-organizer on behalf of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included >> and built on Nnenna's suggestions. >> >> Anriette >> >> Proposed title: >> >> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability >> and transparency in MS processes" >> >> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three >> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share >> experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice >> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these >> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of >> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from >> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists >> and analysts. >> >> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to >> the CSTD WG on EC. >> >> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building >> on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): >> >> >> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder >> processes >> >> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder >> groups are defined and represented >> >> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient >> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss >> possible principles to work from >> >> 4. Propose working methods for going forward >> >> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working >> document to the CSTD WG on EC. >> >> >> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the >> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to >> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the >> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. >> >> >> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Tue Mar 19 05:12:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:12:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <000301ce2481$eec62ff0$cc528fd0$@gmail.com> Whoops... just woke up... long day, week, month... Memo to self: be careful how you address memo's to self (note's for blogpost ... :) M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:47 PM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation So, the issue now is nobody wants to hurt ISOC's feelings :(... complete BS of course... but that is the story that Constance peddled and Anriette picked up and moved along... The other story, what is just and proper doesn't seem to have as much resonance (among a bunch of milquetoasts... and the real story which is about arrogance and power which is "my" story is too strong for anyone to deal with much... Not sure I see anyway to do much about this ... My suggestion is to at this point just wait... whatever will happen will happen and I'm not sure that we can do much to make it happen at this point... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >> coordinators. In my experience. > > > Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, > that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic > about requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those > who recently managed the very public process It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). of appointing members of an important public > body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in glass houses....." FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions on other SGs. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 05:19:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:19:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51482687.6030408@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> <51482687.6030408@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130319101928.5292a3d0@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Oh one additional thing.. we should formulate a policy question which > the workshop addresses. Or rephrase the title as a question. Actually we have only up to 60 characters for the title. "Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" is slightly too long, but "MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency" would fit. We also need some wordsmithing on the following points: 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest (max 500 characters) 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to be addressed (max 500 characters) 4. Indication of workshop format: a. Panel* b. Roundtable c. Free discussion (with one or two moderators) d. Other (please describe) Greetings, Norbert > > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included > >> and built on Nnenna's suggestions. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> Proposed title: > >> > >> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability > >> and transparency in MS processes" > >> > >> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three > >> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share > >> experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice > >> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these > >> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of > >> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from > >> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists > >> and analysts. > >> > >> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to > >> the CSTD WG on EC. > >> > >> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows > >> (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > >> > >> > >> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in > >> multi-stakeholder processes > >> > >> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how > >> stakeholder groups are defined and represented > >> > >> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > >> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > >> possible principles to work from > >> > >> 4. Propose working methods for going forward > >> > >> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a > >> working document to the CSTD WG on EC. > >> > >> > >> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the > >> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to > >> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the > >> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 05:23:07 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> Dear Norbert.. not at all! It was just a proposal first made to the IGC list, developed by Nnenna in reply, and then included in my response to Constance (copied to the IGC list). Anriette On 19/03/2013 10:48, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> If it seems ok, then the coordinators can put as the first for the 48 >> hour agreed text process. > Anriette, maybe you could quickly clarify - does the past tense > "proposed" imply that have you already submitted this at the IGF > website? > > If not, what's your view on Adam's suggestion to use this text as the > starting point for an IGC consensus process? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included >>> and built on Nnenna's suggestions. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> Proposed title: >>> >>> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability >>> and transparency in MS processes" >>> >>> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three >>> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used >>> to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good >>> practice approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these >>> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of >>> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from >>> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists >>> and analysts. >>> >>> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to >>> the CSTD WG on EC. >>> >>> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows >>> (building on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): >>> >>> >>> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in >>> multi-stakeholder processes >>> >>> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder >>> groups are defined and represented >>> >>> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient >>> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss >>> possible principles to work from >>> >>> 4. Propose working methods for going forward >>> >>> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a >>> working document to the CSTD WG on EC. >>> >>> >>> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the >>> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to >>> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the >>> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 avri at acm.org Tue Mar 19 06:15:10 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:15:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> Hi, I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. And I support Anriette's proposal which is similar to #2: "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" avri On 18 Mar 2013, at 23:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I fully support the third proposal. > > For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. > > As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >>> >>> >>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? >> >> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. >> >> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals >> >> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. >> >> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . >> >> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. >> >> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >> >> >> 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 06:15:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:15:43 +0100 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > It was just a proposal first made to the IGC list, developed by Nnenna > in reply, and then included in my response to Constance (copied to the > IGC list). Ok... I've tried to put it into the required format (subject in particular to those length limits)... Everyone - as time is short, any disagreements that will require a formal consensus process to resolve should be raised as quickly as possible please. Greetings, Norbert --snip------------------------------------------------------------------- The template is as follows: 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest (max 500 characters): From lessons learnt to good practice: It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, including ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at times from overlaps between stakeholder categories. 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to be addressed (max 500 characters): * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups are defined and represented? * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to work from?) Indication of workshop format: At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online consensus process to draft an outcome document. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 19 06:26:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:56:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> Message-ID: <829E37EE-AB79-420C-9FC8-A9475213FBA3@hserus.net> I am ok with Anriette's wording. For #1 - sorry but its been a long day and its not clear whether you support it or not :) --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 15:45, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. > > And I support Anriette's proposal which is similar to #2: "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability and transparency in MS processes" > > avri > > On 18 Mar 2013, at 23:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I fully support the third proposal. >> >> For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. >> >> As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? >>> >>> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. >>> >>> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals >>> >>> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. >>> >>> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . >>> >>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. >>> >>> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >>> >>> >>> parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Mar 19 07:08:59 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:08:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <829E37EE-AB79-420C-9FC8-A9475213FBA3@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> <829E37EE-AB79-420C-9FC8-A9475213FBA3@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 19 Mar 2013, at 06:26, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am ok with Anriette's wording. > > For #1 - sorry but its been a long day and its not clear whether you support it or not :) Neither am I. I agree that there are a lot of important topics chunked under the heading Network Neutrality. I think it is a heading that has outlived its usefulness and so sort of agree with you, but until i have seen a proposal for a topic am not sure I support it. One concern I have on the topic is declarations on the technical necessity for things like DPI. It is too easy to say, it is necessary and thus not a concern. One of the topics I think we need to explore is the balance between the creation of tools that seem necessary for technical purposes and the potential harm these tools cause when misused avri DPI - Deep Packet Inspection. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 19 07:12:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:42:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> <829E37EE-AB79-420C-9FC8-A9475213FBA3@hserus.net> Message-ID: I am all for defining proper use cases (or more accurately, defining use cases where the use of DPI is unacceptable - such as for advertising, or for government imposed censorship of free speech - with an exception where government CERTs routinely share data about malware command and control sites, sites that host child abuse images etc, things that don't quite come under any category of free speech and are actually harmful). See - gray areas even in the simplest set of use cases. --srs (iPad) On 19-Mar-2013, at 16:38, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2013, at 06:26, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I am ok with Anriette's wording. >> >> For #1 - sorry but its been a long day and its not clear whether you support it or not :) > > > Neither am I. > > > I agree that there are a lot of important topics chunked under the heading Network Neutrality. > > I think it is a heading that has outlived its usefulness and so sort of agree with you, but until i have seen a proposal for a topic am not sure I support it. > > One concern I have on the topic is declarations on the technical necessity for things like DPI. It is too easy to say, it is necessary and thus not a concern. One of the topics I think we need to explore is the balance between the creation of tools that seem necessary for technical purposes and the potential harm these tools cause when misused > > avri > > > DPI - Deep Packet Inspection. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 07:39:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:39:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130319123944.5f96b67f@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. > >> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question > >> idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by > >> Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I > >> am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue > >> of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and > >> institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having > >> witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more > >> pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I > >> propose we have a workshop on this question. [with IGC Coordinator hat on] This workshop proposal seems to seems to enjoy broad support, but it still lacks a volunteer or a team who would do the work of organizing, and there is also the need for the proponents to put together concrete text for http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals . Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 19 07:47:10 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:47:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <000301ce2481$eec62ff0$cc528fd0$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> <000301ce2481$eec62ff0$cc528fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, you've sent this to the list twice. Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whoops... just woke up... long day, week, month... > > Memo to self: be careful how you address memo's to self (note's for blogpost > ... :) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:47 PM > To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim'; 'parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > So, the issue now is nobody wants to hurt ISOC's feelings :(... complete BS > of course... but that is the story that Constance peddled and Anriette > picked up and moved along... > > The other story, what is just and proper doesn't seem to have as much > resonance (among a bunch of milquetoasts... and the real story which is > about arrogance and power which is "my" story is too strong for anyone to > deal with much... > > Not sure I see anyway to do much about this ... > > My suggestion is to at this point just wait... whatever will happen will > happen and I'm not sure that we can do much to make it happen at this > point... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:24 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder > wrote: >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >>> coordinators. In my experience. >> >> >> Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, >> that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all enthusiastic >> about requesting some simple definitional clarifications from those >> who recently managed the very public process > > It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). > > > of appointing members of an important public >> body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... > > I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in glass > houses....." > > FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions on > other SGs. > > -- > 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 08:02:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:02:23 +0100 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC Coordinator hat on] I had written: > Everyone - as time is short, any disagreements that will require a > formal consensus process to resolve should be raised as quickly as > possible please. I'd like to hereby declare a 13.00 Geneva time on Thu 21 deadline by which any disagreement related to this proposal should be raised. (By the way, even though that is about 48 hours from now, it is not the 48 hours framework given in the Charter for the rough consensus process. A rough consensus process is allowed by our Charter only if a consensus process has been attempted and it was unsuccessful.) Greetings, Norbert P.S. BTW I have also sent a copy of the below draft to Ayesha Hassan of ICC Basis and to Constance Bommelaer of ISOC. > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The template is as follows: > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > (max 500 characters): > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the three > non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share > experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice > approaches on accountability and transparency. We could also discuss > the composition of these constituency groups, including ambiguity of > definition, and the challenges that arise at times from overlaps > between stakeholder categories. > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > are defined and represented? > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to work > from?) > > Indication of workshop format: > > At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time > for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online consensus > process to draft an outcome document. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 08:20:15 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:20:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> <000301ce2481$eec62ff0$cc528fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001ce249c$236cbcf0$6a4636d0$@gmail.com> Adam, not that I have a record of... I am scrutinizing my "in" and "out" boxes at bit more carefully of late. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Michael, you've sent this to the list twice. Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whoops... just woke up... long day, week, month... > > Memo to self: be careful how you address memo's to self (note's for > blogpost ... :) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:47 PM > To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim'; 'parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > So, the issue now is nobody wants to hurt ISOC's feelings :(... > complete BS of course... but that is the story that Constance peddled > and Anriette picked up and moved along... > > The other story, what is just and proper doesn't seem to have as much > resonance (among a bunch of milquetoasts... and the real story which > is about arrogance and power which is "my" story is too strong for > anyone to deal with much... > > Not sure I see anyway to do much about this ... > > My suggestion is to at this point just wait... whatever will happen > will happen and I'm not sure that we can do much to make it happen at > this point... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:24 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >>> coordinators. In my experience. >> >> >> Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, >> that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all >> enthusiastic about requesting some simple definitional clarifications >> from those who recently managed the very public process > > It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). > > > of appointing members of an important public >> body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... > > I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in > glass houses....." > > FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions > on other SGs. > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 19 08:23:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <20130319123944.5f96b67f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> <20130319123944.5f96b67f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <514858C8.30505@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 05:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. >>>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question >>>> idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by >>>> Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I >>>> am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue >>>> of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and >>>> institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having >>>> witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more >>>> pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I >>>> propose we have a workshop on this question. > [with IGC Coordinator hat on] > > This workshop proposal seems to seems to enjoy broad support, but it > still lacks a volunteer or a team who would do the work of organizing, > and there is also the need for the proponents to put together concrete > text for http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals . I can take this up. At least temporarily , at this stage.... parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 19 08:37:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:37:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <009001ce249c$236cbcf0$6a4636d0$@gmail.com> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <20130317161306.73e17590@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318122333.20671e7e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130318142751.5ab3adbc@quill.bollow.ch> <5147C6A6.8050700@itforchange.net> <000301ce2481$eec62ff0$cc528fd0$@gmail.com> <009001ce249c$236cbcf0$6a4636d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-03/msg00415.html http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-03/msg00436.html Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:20 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, not that I have a record of... I am scrutinizing my "in" and "out" > boxes at bit more carefully of late. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:47 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Michael, you've sent this to the list twice. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:12 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Whoops... just woke up... long day, week, month... >> >> Memo to self: be careful how you address memo's to self (note's for >> blogpost ... :) >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:47 PM >> To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim'; 'parminder' >> Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> So, the issue now is nobody wants to hurt ISOC's feelings :(... >> complete BS of course... but that is the story that Constance peddled >> and Anriette picked up and moved along... >> >> The other story, what is just and proper doesn't seem to have as much >> resonance (among a bunch of milquetoasts... and the real story which >> is about arrogance and power which is "my" story is too strong for >> anyone to deal with much... >> >> Not sure I see anyway to do much about this ... >> >> My suggestion is to at this point just wait... whatever will happen >> will happen and I'm not sure that we can do much to make it happen at >> this point... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:24 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM, parminder >> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Monday 18 March 2013 08:29 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> I doubt that will work. There's much to do, that why there are two >>>> coordinators. In my experience. >>> >>> >>> Great that you are such a stickler for process and propriety. BTW, >>> that does it make it a little odd that you are not at all >>> enthusiastic about requesting some simple definitional clarifications >>> from those who recently managed the very public process >> >> It was hardly public, and ours wasn't either (until after the fact). >> >> >> of appointing members of an important public >>> body. What is it that saying about sauce, geese and gander...... >> >> I think that the phrase you are looking for is "those who live in >> glass houses....." >> >> FWIW, I don't think we should be writing to anyone to cast aspersions >> on other SGs. >> >> -- >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 19 09:04:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:04:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, Anriette proposed the workshop, already working on it. Would much prefer she continued during the preliminary stage (and I am sure many of us will help) and we can talk about who will take over the organization of the full workshop later. And I am sure APC is already busy with workshops, sessions etc, so would only suggest this as the way forward until the April 30 date for full proposals. and, frankly, I think more diplomatic at this time to have Anriette handle this. Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Deal all > > Anriette's proposal looks very good to me. If this is agreeable to all > who are concerned, including in particular Anriette and the IGC, I'd > volunteer to serve as co-organizer on behalf of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included >> and built on Nnenna's suggestions. >> >> Anriette >> >> Proposed title: >> >> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability >> and transparency in MS processes" >> >> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three >> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share >> experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice >> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these >> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of >> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from >> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists >> and analysts. >> >> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to >> the CSTD WG on EC. >> >> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building >> on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): >> >> >> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder >> processes >> >> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder >> groups are defined and represented >> >> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient >> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss >> possible principles to work from >> >> 4. Propose working methods for going forward >> >> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working >> document to the CSTD WG on EC. >> >> >> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the >> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to >> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the >> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 19 09:08:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:38:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <514858C8.30505@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> <20130319123944.5f96b67f@quill.bollow.ch> <514858C8.30505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5148633B.2010906@itforchange.net> Here is the workshop proposal 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): 'Traditional telecom regulations/institutions and the Internet' 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest (max 500 characters): Whether traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to the Internet or not has been a controversial subject. Much of WCIT revolved around this subject. This issue is also playing out at the national level in many countries, with telecom regulators unclear about application of traditional communication related rules and norms to the Internet. The specific issues here range from content related regulation to net neutrality and universal access. 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to be addressed (max 500 characters): a) Does traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to the Internet or not? b) If they do not apply, how should traditional norms of communication infrastructure like common carriage (net neutrality), universal access, emergency communications etc get applied to the Internet, or is there no need to do so? c) Whether they do apply or not, or partially apply, what changes of frameworks, institutions, participation processes are needed, both at the national and global levels? Indication of workshop format: Yes to be worked out, but also proposed that a main session be organised around this policy question, and alternatively have a workshop plus round table. On Tuesday 19 March 2013 05:53 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 05:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. >>>>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy >>>>> question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This >>>>> was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and >>>>> supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but >>>>> it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom >>>>> regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or >>>>> dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of >>>>> and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy >>>>> related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a >>>>> workshop on this question. >> [with IGC Coordinator hat on] >> >> This workshop proposal seems to seems to enjoy broad support, but >> it still lacks a volunteer or a team who would do the work of >> organizing, and there is also the need for the proponents to put >> together concrete text for http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >> . > > I can take this up. At least temporarily , at this stage.... > parminder >> >> Greetings, Norbert >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 10:34:05 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:34:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <20130319094217.6c7c1ebc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5148775D.9080409@apc.org> Dear Adam I think it is good to have this as an IGC proposal. I am happy to support the process in my capacity as the 'focal point' for the CSTD WG selection (a role which is actually now over). APC is also working on a proposal with the government of Brazil, ISOC and ICC Basis on broader principles for multi-stakeholder internet governance to build on the events we did in Baku, and in Paris at WSIS +5. It would be good to make sure that this workshop is distinguished clearly from the one we are discussing in the IGC. Ayesha has already communicated with Norbert and committed that ICC Basis will participate in some way. Anja Kovacs from Internet Democracy Project has shared ideas on this topic with me. Anja, what about you getting involved. And Nnenna has already contributed substantial ideas. Nnenna.. more input from you ? I know how busy you are. Norbert, just let me know if you need any more input from me. Anriette On 19/03/2013 15:04, Adam Peake wrote: > Norbert, > > Anriette proposed the workshop, already working on it. Would much > prefer she continued during the preliminary stage (and I am sure many > of us will help) and we can talk about who will take over the > organization of the full workshop later. And I am sure APC is already > busy with workshops, sessions etc, so would only suggest this as the > way forward until the April 30 date for full proposals. > > and, frankly, I think more diplomatic at this time to have Anriette > handle this. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Deal all >> >> Anriette's proposal looks very good to me. If this is agreeable to all >> who are concerned, including in particular Anriette and the IGC, I'd >> volunteer to serve as co-organizer on behalf of the IGC. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here is the description of the workshop I proposed. I have included >>> and built on Nnenna's suggestions. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> Proposed title: >>> >>> "From lessons learnt to good practice: Strengthening accountability >>> and transparency in MS processes" >>> >>> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three >>> non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to share >>> experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice >>> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these >>> constituency groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of >>> the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS from >>> having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists >>> and analysts. >>> >>> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to >>> the CSTD WG on EC. >>> >>> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building >>> on the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): >>> >>> >>> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder >>> processes >>> >>> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder >>> groups are defined and represented >>> >>> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient >>> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss >>> possible principles to work from >>> >>> 4. Propose working methods for going forward >>> >>> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working >>> document to the CSTD WG on EC. >>> >>> >>> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the >>> build up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to >>> initiate such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the >>> next IGF open consultation to have a face to face discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 19 11:26:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:26:09 +0100 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> Update: Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce is proposing to change the title to "MS selection processes: Accountability and transparency" which I think is a clear improvement, as it much better communicates what the proposed workshop is about specifically. She writes also that "there will be other workshop proposals on multistakeholder principles more generally", so it makes a lot of sense to differentiate in this way. Are there any objections to this proposed change? Greetings, Norbert > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The template is as follows: > > > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > > > MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency > > > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > > (max 500 characters): > > > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to > > share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > > practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could > > also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, > > including ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at > > times from overlaps between stakeholder categories. > > > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > > are defined and represented? > > > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to > > work from?) > > > > Indication of workshop format: > > > > At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time > > for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online > > consensus process to draft an outcome document. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Mar 19 12:08:09 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:08:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6501EBFE-CA54-4033-89CD-79B3968D0D7C@uzh.ch> Hi On Mar 19, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I fully support the third proposal. Such a proposal is already in the works, has sponsors etc. So no worries. > > For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. > > As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. As framed and in context it sounds like something IGC would probably end up having to do solo rather than in partnership with the other SGs. Is that what CS wants to do in Bali? Bill > > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings. >>> >>> >>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? >> >> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for it. >> >> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals >> >> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without much ado. >> >> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies' . >> >> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question. >> >> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. >>> >>> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be >>> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) >>> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe >>> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results >>> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill >>> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental >>> SGs about how to improve processes. >>> >>> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to >>> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. >>> >>> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a >>> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try >>> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov >>> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We >>> could also discuss the categorisation of these >>> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA >>> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly >>>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like >>>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether. >>>> >>>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and >>>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and >>>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not >>>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for >>>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others >>>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining >>>> letter to anyone. >>>> >>>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think >>>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our >>>> objectives here. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on >>>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC >>>> >>>> Hi Parminder >>>> >>>> snipping... >>>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the >>>>>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just >>>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense >>>>> >>>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of >>>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very >>>>> logical to put them together. >>>> >>>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with >>>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just >>>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency >>>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial >>>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's >>>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective >>>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the >>>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't >>>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to >>>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics >>>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary >>>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see >>>> themselves that way and feel they are CS. >>>> >>>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that >>>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. >>>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and >>>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS >>>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't >>>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we >>>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the >>>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS >>>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some >>>> settings, but that's another conversation. >>>> >>>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the >>>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. >>>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? >>>> >>>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good >>>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when >>>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies >>>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in >>>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write >>>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's >>>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, >>>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, >>>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal >>>> remains valid. >>>>> >>>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and >>>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to >>>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role >>>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to >>>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. >>>> >>>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but >>>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the >>>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to >>>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we >>>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth >>>> it could be worth a try. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 12:24:46 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:24:46 +0500 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Norbet, Agree with Ayesha Hassan input and the title, So I say +1 On 19 March 2013 20:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Update: Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce is > proposing to change the title to "MS selection processes: > Accountability and transparency" which I think is a clear improvement, > as it much better communicates what the proposed workshop is about > specifically. She writes also that "there will be other workshop > proposals on multistakeholder principles more generally", so it makes > a lot of sense to differentiate in this way. > > Are there any objections to this proposed change? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > The template is as follows: > > > > > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > > > > > MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency > > > > > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > > > (max 500 characters): > > > > > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > > > > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the > > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to > > > share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > > > practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could > > > also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, > > > including ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at > > > times from overlaps between stakeholder categories. > > > > > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > > > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > > > > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > > > are defined and represented? > > > > > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > > > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to > > > work from?) > > > > > > Indication of workshop format: > > > > > > At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time > > > for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online > > > consensus process to draft an outcome document. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bommelaer at isoc.org Tue Mar 19 12:54:35 2013 From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:54:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5146EF67.6030603@apc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5146EF67.6030603@apc.org> Message-ID: <5148984B.3070602@isoc.org> Dear Anriette, Thank you for your note. This sounds like a very reasonable approach and I would be happy to work with you on such a proposal. We all agree that these are important issues and the IGF offers the legitimate platform to discuss and make collective progress. Multistakeholder processes are by essence in the hands of their respective stakeholder groups. It is our collective responsibility to nurture them with the strengths of our different cultures, in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. By discussing common principles of participation (openness of processes, transparency on individuals' interests, etc.), all stakeholders will be able to learn from each other and share good practices. This joint workshop initiative is an opportunity to demonstrate our willingness and ability to work together in a constructive and cooperative fashion. I suggest that we work on the details of the proposal off-line; this will give me additional time to collect ideas and input from my own community. To me, this discussion and our willingness to cooperate on this in a more practical manner is in itself a perfect illustration of the benefit of the multistakeholder framework. Best regards, Constance On 3/18/13 11:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Constance > > (copying Ayesha Hassan - business focal point - and the IGC list) > > Thank you for your message and for your openness to discussing the > concerns raised in the IGC list. I am responding in my capacity as focal > point for the selection of CS participants in the CSTD WG on Enhanced > Cooperation. As you have been following the discussion on the IGC list > you would have a sense of the range of concerns and issues (and views on > these) that this process has generated. > > > As the political implications of the work done in these > multi-stakeholder processes increase in potential impact - which is a > positive sign - it is understandable that the processes used to identify > participants in them will be under more intense scrutiny. This is > certainly the case when it comes to 'enhanced cooperation'. I don't > think that this scrutiny is being applied only to the TA constituency. I > think it applies to all three non-governmental groups and possibly also > to governments. In my role as focal point I tried to, on the one hand, > respect the CS groupings already active in the IGF space, as well as > create opportunities for civil society organisations/individuals that > are not necessarily active in the IGF, but that have valuable experience > in other governance processes. I was not as successful in this attempt > as I would have liked to be. > > > With regard to Michael Gurstein's nomination I can confirm that he did > not put his name forward for CS selection. When I approached him to > confirm his interest – I knew he was interested in participating in the > WG - he informed me that he had put his name forward to the TA community > and he was therefore not included in the CS selection process at all. > > > My view is that the most constructive approach at this point would be: > > 1) For the chairperson of the CSTD to finalise the selection of the WG > based on the inputs received from stakeholder groups and for the CSTD WG > to start its work; > > 2) For the non-governmental stakeholder groups to pick up on the issues > and concerns that the selection has raised at a workshop at the 2013 IGF. > > Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three groups and used > to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice > approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency > groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community > and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of > organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. > > The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the > CSTD WG on EC. > > The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on > the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): > > > 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder > processes > > 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder > groups are defined and represented > > 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient > transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss > possible principles to work from > > 4. Propose working methods for going forward > > 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working > document to the CSTD WG on EC. > > > Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build > up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate > such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open > consultation to have a face to face discussion. > > > > Best regards > > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 11:18, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> Dear Anriette, >> >> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >> Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on >> Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the >> importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build >> across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this >> reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group. >> >> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced >> Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a >> move underway to question the representation of the technical and >> academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was >> triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael >> Gurstein. >> >> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >> community. The names put forward were subject to considerable >> discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil >> Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The >> criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as >> with the UN. >> >> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria >> and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to >> the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up >> until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society >> and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent >> WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an >> interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the >> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to >> confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to >> the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various >> stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” >> and question the entire process. >> >> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group >> and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is >> understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be >> discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context >> was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and >> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management >> of the Internet and who work within this community. This category >> manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been >> involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with >> Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005. >> >> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >> groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >> technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or >> even for its representatives to be appointed by governments >> contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached >> to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control >> upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another. This would >> be the end of multistakeholderism. >> >> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a >> delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing >> it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work >> is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit, >> the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open >> and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the >> inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are >> being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of >> individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance >> discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >> >> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >> are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >> working with all of you in this spirit. >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Mar 19 13:12:58 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:12:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <6501EBFE-CA54-4033-89CD-79B3968D0D7C@uzh.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6501EBFE-CA54-4033-89CD-79B3968D0D7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <3E41C738-7787-426B-AB77-D9E653EFCA7E@uzh.ch> Hi again Responding to my own message is a bit unusual, but the mail volume today is such that I've seen my reply of an hour ago needs an update-- On Mar 19, 2013, at 5:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I fully support the third proposal. > > Such a proposal is already in the works, has sponsors etc. So no worries. As in I am proposing a workshop on Internet/telecom convergence and global IG in the post-WCIT context. APC is co-organizer, ISOC a co-sponsor, invites out to one and maybe more government, etc. >> >> For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture. >> >> As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread. > > As framed and in context it sounds like something IGC would probably end up having to do solo rather than in partnership with the other SGs. Is that what CS wants to do in Bali? Very happy to see that ICC and ISOC are on board and Anriette et al are moving this forward as a cooperative venture. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 13:13:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:13:04 -0700 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <00c301ce24c5$0c1fc910$245f5b30$@gmail.com> While I think that this initiative is worthwhile and would like to see it go forward I think that the recent interactions concerning "stakeholder selection" raise rather more fundamental and dare I say "existential" issues which also or even prior, need to be addressed. Would it perhaps be possible to envisage a parallel workshop that might address some of these issues? Thus for example, 1. what is the definition of a "stakeholder" (stakeholder group?--is there a difference?) 2. who gets to define/ratify the definitions/inclusionary/exclusionary covenants for individual stakeholders/SG's 3. is there an appeal/review process re: these covenants 4. what is the process of evolution/change of these stakeholder covenants and how is the process governed/managed and by whom 5. how are internal governance process within stakeholder groups determined/ratified and how is this process itself governed and by whom 6. what is the relationship between individual stakeholder groups and associated organizational (focal) structures--is this a necessary or contingent relationship and if contingent what are the factors governing such contingencies 7. what is the relationship between SG's, Focal organizations and non-Focal SG members--and how is this governed and by whom 8. how is the significant disparity in available resources for internal operations/management and external participation/representation handled so as to ensure some degree of equitable opportunity for the various stakeholders 9. other... Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:26 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go Update: Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce is proposing to change the title to "MS selection processes: Accountability and transparency" which I think is a clear improvement, as it much better communicates what the proposed workshop is about specifically. She writes also that "there will be other workshop proposals on multistakeholder principles more generally", so it makes a lot of sense to differentiate in this way. Are there any objections to this proposed change? Greetings, Norbert > > --snip-------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- > > > > The template is as follows: > > > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > > > MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency > > > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > > (max 500 characters): > > > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to > > share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > > practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could > > also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, including > > ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at times from > > overlaps between stakeholder categories. > > > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > > are defined and represented? > > > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to > > work from?) > > > > Indication of workshop format: > > > > At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time > > for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online > > consensus process to draft an outcome document. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 19 14:16:46 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:16:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5148984B.3070602@isoc.org> References: <51458A64.500@isoc.org> <5146EF67.6030603@apc.org> <5148984B.3070602@isoc.org> Message-ID: <5148AB8E.1070306@apc.org> Dear Constance Thank you very much for your message and for supporting the idea of the joint workshop. Planning for it is under way in an email loop that was started earlier today by Norbert Bollow that includes you, Ayesha Hassan and myself as business and CS focal points for the CSTD WG as well as a few others from the IGC. Warm regards Anriette On 19/03/2013 18:54, Constance Bommelaer wrote: > > Dear Anriette, > > Thank you for your note. > > This sounds like a very reasonable approach and I would be happy to > work with you on such a proposal. We all agree that these are > important issues and the IGF offers the legitimate platform to discuss > and make collective progress. > > Multistakeholder processes are by essence in the hands of their > respective stakeholder groups. It is our collective responsibility to > nurture them with the strengths of our different cultures, in a spirit > of cooperation and mutual respect. By discussing common principles of > participation (openness of processes, transparency on individuals' > interests, etc.), all stakeholders will be able to learn from each > other and share good practices. > > This joint workshop initiative is an opportunity to demonstrate our > willingness and ability to work together in a constructive and > cooperative fashion. I suggest that we work on the details of the > proposal off-line; this will give me additional time to collect ideas > and input from my own community. > > To me, this discussion and our willingness to cooperate on this in a > more practical manner is in itself a perfect illustration of the > benefit of the multistakeholder framework. > > Best regards, > > Constance > > > > On 3/18/13 11:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear Constance >> >> (copying Ayesha Hassan - business focal point - and the IGC list) >> >> Thank you for your message and for your openness to discussing the >> concerns raised in the IGC list. I am responding in my capacity as focal >> point for the selection of CS participants in the CSTD WG on Enhanced >> Cooperation. As you have been following the discussion on the IGC list >> you would have a sense of the range of concerns and issues (and views on >> these) that this process has generated. >> >> >> As the political implications of the work done in these >> multi-stakeholder processes increase in potential impact - which is a >> positive sign - it is understandable that the processes used to identify >> participants in them will be under more intense scrutiny. This is >> certainly the case when it comes to 'enhanced cooperation'. I don't >> think that this scrutiny is being applied only to the TA constituency. I >> think it applies to all three non-governmental groups and possibly also >> to governments. In my role as focal point I tried to, on the one hand, >> respect the CS groupings already active in the IGF space, as well as >> create opportunities for civil society organisations/individuals that >> are not necessarily active in the IGF, but that have valuable experience >> in other governance processes. I was not as successful in this attempt >> as I would have liked to be. >> >> >> With regard to Michael Gurstein's nomination I can confirm that he did >> not put his name forward for CS selection. When I approached him to >> confirm his interest – I knew he was interested in participating in the >> WG - he informed me that he had put his name forward to the TA community >> and he was therefore not included in the CS selection process at all. >> >> >> My view is that the most constructive approach at this point would be: >> >> 1) For the chairperson of the CSTD to finalise the selection of the WG >> based on the inputs received from stakeholder groups and for the CSTD WG >> to start its work; >> >> 2) For the non-governmental stakeholder groups to pick up on the issues >> and concerns that the selection has raised at a workshop at the 2013 >> IGF. >> >> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three groups and used >> to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice >> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency >> groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community >> and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of >> organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts. >> >> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the >> CSTD WG on EC. >> >> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on >> the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): >> >> >> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder >> processes >> >> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder >> groups are defined and represented >> >> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient >> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss >> possible principles to work from >> >> 4. Propose working methods for going forward >> >> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working >> document to the CSTD WG on EC. >> >> >> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build >> up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate >> such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open >> consultation to have a face to face discussion. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2013 11:18, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> Dear Anriette, >>> >>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil >>> Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on >>> Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the >>> importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build >>> across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this >>> reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society >>> group. >>> >>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced >>> Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a >>> move underway to question the representation of the technical and >>> academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was >>> triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael >>> Gurstein. >>> >>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our >>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our >>> community. The names put forward were subject to considerable >>> discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil >>> Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The >>> criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as >>> with the UN. >>> >>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria >>> and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to >>> the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up >>> until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society >>> and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent >>> WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an >>> interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the >>> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to >>> confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to >>> the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various >>> stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful >>> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping” >>> and question the entire process. >>> >>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a >>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group >>> and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is >>> understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be >>> discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context >>> was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and >>> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management >>> of the Internet and who work within this community. This category >>> manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been >>> involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with >>> Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005. >>> >>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder >>> groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the >>> technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or >>> even for its representatives to be appointed by governments >>> contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached >>> to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control >>> upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another. This would >>> be the end of multistakeholderism. >>> >>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a >>> delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing >>> it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work >>> is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit, >>> the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open >>> and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the >>> inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are >>> being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of >>> individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance >>> discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.). >>> >>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups >>> are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to >>> working with all of you in this spirit. >>> >>> Thank you and best regards, >>> >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 16:29:41 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:29:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] Workshops proposals for IGF was Re: [] COMMENTS SOUGHT: ... In-Reply-To: <5148633B.2010906@itforchange.net> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <09DF8638-210A-445D-B586-B35FB8AD0C18@hserus.net> <6583F518-B5F4-48EA-BEBD-C23481B2B562@acm.org> <20130319123944.5f96b67f@quill.bollow.ch> <514858C8.30505@itforchange.net> <5148633B.2010906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I am happy to help with this as well. It will be good to have something from the IGC on this scope. Sala On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:08 AM, parminder wrote: > Here is the workshop proposal > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > 'Traditional telecom regulations/institutions and the Internet' > > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest (max > 500 characters): > > Whether traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to > the Internet or not has been a controversial subject. Much of WCIT revolved > around this subject. This issue is also playing out at the national level > in many countries, with telecom regulators unclear about application of > traditional communication related rules and norms to the Internet. The > specific issues here range from content related regulation to net > neutrality and universal access. > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to > be addressed (max 500 characters): > > a) Does traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to > the Internet or not? > > b) If they do not apply, how should traditional norms of communication > infrastructure like common carriage (net neutrality), universal access, > emergency communications etc get applied to the Internet, or is there no > need to do so? > > c) Whether they do apply or not, or partially apply, what changes of > frameworks, institutions, participation processes are needed, both at the > national and global levels? > > Indication of workshop format: > > Yes to be worked out, but also proposed that a main session be organised > around this policy question, and alternatively have a workshop plus round > table. > > > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 05:53 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 05:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >>> I agree with this. I support #3 as expressed below. > >>>>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy > >>>>> question idea was was proposed during the MAG meeting. This > >>>>> was done by Thomas Schneider of the Swiss government, and > >>>>> supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings used but > >>>>> it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom > >>>>> regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or > >>>>> dont apply to the Internet' . Having witnesses the turmoil of > >>>>> and around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy > >>>>> related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have a > >>>>> workshop on this question. > >> [with IGC Coordinator hat on] > >> > >> This workshop proposal seems to seems to enjoy broad support, but > >> it still lacks a volunteer or a team who would do the work of > >> organizing, and there is also the need for the proponents to put > >> together concrete text for http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > >> . > > > > I can take this up. At least temporarily , at this stage.... > > parminder > >> > >> Greetings, Norbert > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 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 Tue Mar 19 17:11:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:11:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- - Workshop Proposal 1 - Workshop Proposal 2 Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* -1 Workshop Proposal You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala *(co-coordinator)* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 IGC Workshop Proposals Draft.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 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 Tue Mar 19 17:17:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:17:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive things to take on. +1 Workshop Proposal #2 -- 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 Tue Mar 19 17:25:02 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:25:02 +1100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67B8E220BD684C058AC41DD6F8C89A1A@Toshiba> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 (McTim, I am surprised you oppose a workshop which has already been supported by both ISOC and business community (see correspondence on line). Of course that’s your right, but are you aware this is supported by all three non governmental constituencies and is a joint proposal?) Ian From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] Dear All, Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- a.. Workshop Proposal 1 b.. Workshop Proposal 2 Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: -1 Workshop Proposal You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala (co-coordinator) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From skiden at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 18:22:38 2013 From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:22:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Workshop Proposal 1. Thanks, Sarah On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > > - Workshop Proposal 1 > - Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > *(co-coordinator)* > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Mar 19 19:18:03 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:18:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 19 March 2013 17:22, Sarah Kiden wrote: > +1 Workshop Proposal 1. > > Thanks, > Sarah > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> - Workshop Proposal 1 >> - Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >> the following means:- >> >> >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> *(co-coordinator)* >> > > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Mar 19 19:47:32 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:47:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A47D1D8-BB32-4945-AD1C-163C2FD0EBF5@acm.org> +1 workshop proposal 1 -1 workshop proposal 2 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 19:51:32 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1363737092.89284.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 Workshop 1. Hopefully we will begin discussions in this space and consolidate with other groups @wkshop +1 Workshop 2. I was in Dubai for WCIT and I confirm that a whole bunch of "CS" people a treating the issue from the "blind men and  the elephant" perspective Best regards Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Sarah Kiden Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 19 March 2013 17:22, Sarah Kiden wrote: +1 Workshop Proposal 1.  > > >Thanks, >Sarah  > >On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear All, >> >>Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >>There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> * Workshop Proposal 1 >> * Workshop Proposal 2 >>Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- >> >>If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >>+ 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >>If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >>-1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >>You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. >> >>We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. >> >> >>Thank you. >> >>Kind Regards, >> >>Sala >>(co-coordinator) >> > >-- >Sent from Gmail Mobile > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 20:39:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:39:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <67B8E220BD684C058AC41DD6F8C89A1A@Toshiba> References: <67B8E220BD684C058AC41DD6F8C89A1A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <028801ce2503$7430ae00$5c920a00$@gmail.com> +1 prop 1 +1 prop 2 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 (McTim, I am surprised you oppose a workshop which has already been supported by both ISOC and business community (see correspondence on line). Of course that’s your right, but are you aware this is supported by all three non governmental constituencies and is a joint proposal?) Ian From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] Dear All, Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- * Workshop Proposal 1 * Workshop Proposal 2 Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: -1 Workshop Proposal You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala (co-coordinator) _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 20:45:36 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:45:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <1363737092.89284.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1363737092.89284.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/19 Nnenna > > +1 Workshop 1. Hopefully we will begin discussions in this space and > consolidate with other groups @wkshop > +1 Workshop 2. I was in Dubai for WCIT and I confirm that a whole bunch of > "CS" people a treating the issue from the "blind men and the elephant" > perspective > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ginger Paque > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Sarah Kiden > *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:18 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > On 19 March 2013 17:22, Sarah Kiden wrote: > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1. > > Thanks, > Sarah > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > > - Workshop Proposal 1 > - Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the following means:- > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > *(co-coordinator)* > > > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 19 21:21:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:51:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive > things to take on. > > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 > > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 19 21:55:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:25:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> Message-ID: <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground --srs (htc one x) On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: > > > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive > > things to take on. > > > > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 > > > > > > -- > > 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 ginger at paque.net Tue Mar 19 22:05:16 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:05:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on > the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication > of content we have seen in past IGFs > > It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude > either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration > between stakeholders to find common ground > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: >> >> > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive >> > things to take on. >> > >> > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > >> > McTim >> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > >> > ______________________________**______________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 19 22:10:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:40:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> In that case I will support it. The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming months so that what we see in Bali is joint declarations of specific common grounds for consensus and enhanced cooperation, with commitments from different stakeholder groups that say we are cooperating in such and such a manner and are now sharing results and a way forward. --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 7:35, Ginger Paque wrote: > I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs >> >> It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: >>> >>> > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive >>> > things to take on. >>> > >>> > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > McTim >>> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Mar 19 23:37:06 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:37:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> +1 proposal 1 +1 proposal 2 -- Tapani Tarvainen On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:11:44AM +1200, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > > - Workshop Proposal 1 > - Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the > following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > *(co-coordinator)* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 00:53:20 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:53:20 +0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> References: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi All, Though you have my support for both proposals but they need more work and carry very generic titles. In the first workshop proposal, its very open ended. This is bound to be merged with something else. In the second proposal, there is significant work from APC about Spectrum for Development and this proposal should be revisited to be more focused because there is a possibility that it will be either merged around with something about the history of the Internet etc or something. Should I have been on the MAG, I would have had to push these two proposals into mergers. + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 - Reform topic to be more focused. Work with proposed partners to improve the working title - You may want to explore Multistakeholderism and the evolution of Internet Principles or something + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 - The history of Telecomes, reforms, de regularization, spectrum for development, impacts on the future can come into making this more focused. Best Fouad On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > +1 proposal 1 > +1 proposal 2 > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:11:44AM +1200, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> - Workshop Proposal 1 >> - Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the >> following means:- >> >> >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> *(co-coordinator)* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 20 02:02:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:02:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal In-Reply-To: <201303200420.r2K4KGtp021724@mx3.syr.edu> References: <9A9C8C5F-119E-4E26-BC5C-56063338A5CF@ipjustice.org> <201303200420.r2K4KGtp021724@mx3.syr.edu> Message-ID: RFC 6852 (concern re. business/market focused view of Internet standards) was discussed at the time we were trying to drag together a contribution for the February IGF consultation. Important issue for some, but I think discussion was left with the suggestion that it might make a good subject for a workshop. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: JFC Morfin Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu As I announced it on Aungust 28th, I consider appealing RFC 6852 (the market oriented ISOConsortium rather than the better Internet oriented IETF). For calendar reasons I would have to foreward it this week. The reason why is that I gave the IAB, IETF and ISOC Chairs all the time before and after the WCIT to explain the Internet research, engineering and users communities their vision of the Internet technical evolution and to clarify their "OpenStand" strategy, in relation with our expectations for an "OpenUse" architectural effort (a better, neutral and secure use of the Internet). What do they think better to foster with the other stakeholders (Govs, Civil Society and International Organizations): cooperation, coopetition, or competition? Or do they think the Internet technological "statUS-quo" under the self-governance of the private sector is a more most advisable incremental development path? In such a case we would be better to keep and protect it: organizing its "adminance" (technical governance) together, within their market monopoly framework, as we did for ICANN. I will come back on this in the coming days, but I would already like to know if some have new positions to suggest. I plan to look carefully at the positions already expressed by Stephane Bortzmeyer, Michael Gurstein, Daniel Kalchev, Avri Doria, Lee McKnight, Suresh Ramasubramanian, Kerry Brown, Norbert Bollow, Dominique Lacroix, McTim, Adam Peake, Louis Pouzin, Carlos Alfonzo, Ian Peter, Nick Ashton-Hart, Alejandro Pisanty, and others on ther lists. I underline that it cannot be a direct debate on the very mission of the IETF and of the Civil Society technical involvement: it can only directly consider the respect of the RFC 2026 Internet standard process and RFC 4845 IAB publication process in publishing RFC 6852. Otherwise I would be dismissed. So, the point is to show that due to the very nature of the matter at hand they could/should have used other rules, and therefore that they had taken decisions. I pland to object these decisions as inadequate in making everyone understand where they, IETF and we stand. And therefore to have a decision to publish a clarification on the way RFC 6852 does not conflict with : - RFC 3869 (IAB Concerns and Recommendations regarding Internet Research and Evolution) - and RFC 3935 (mission and core values of the ITEF). The appeal is in three rounds: one to the IETF, with escalation to the IAB and final to ISOC. I have several times strategically appealed the IESG/IAB. The effort of this appeal would only be acceptable for me if it truely helps the community, clarifying how to develop and launching an OpenUse strategy by Civil Society and open to Govs and international organizations, with the cooperation of the engineering community and based upon a reliable and performing better internet, towards a people centered better use of the Internet. Comments welcome. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 20 02:34:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:04:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> Message-ID: <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for forwarding my name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed for the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from the IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, do not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to contribute - to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we will get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help anyone in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even better way. I wantright awayto put out my intentions regarding above so that I do not appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion only after the process is completed. I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We have a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much prefer that we overdo it rather than underdo it. parminder PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the chances of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have already been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to postpone raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report by the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for > this working group before I released the names of the candidates. > > By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person > did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 > names. > > Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on > the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put > into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their > assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in > preselecting the IGC nominees. > > The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted > candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: > > (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) > > Avri Doria (N America) > Carlos Afonso (A America) > Don McClean (N America) > Grace Githaiga (Africa) > Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) > Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) > Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) > William Drake (Europe) > > I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from > developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who > had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise > to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of > the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. > > Best regards > > Anriette > > > On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >> Enhanced Cooperation* >> >> *Background* >> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >> >> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >> that know them and that have worked with them. >> >> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >> >> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >> convenor of the group. >> >> >> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >> of the period that we had to do our work. >> >> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >> >> *Nominees* >> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >> first in case they have any objection to this. >> >> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >> >> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >> requirement in the call for nominations. >> >> *Scoring process* >> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >> >> >> The criteria were as follows: >> >> >> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >> processes. >> >> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >> >> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >> >> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >> conflicting interests. >> >> >> *Shortlist* >> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >> regional and gender balance. >> >> >> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure >> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >> >> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >> >> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >> the broader internet community. >> >> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >> >> >> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 03:10:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:10:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal In-Reply-To: References: <9A9C8C5F-119E-4E26-BC5C-56063338A5CF@ipjustice.org> <201303200420.r2K4KGtp021724@mx3.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130320081034.066adabe@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > RFC 6852 (concern re. business/market focused view of Internet > standards) was discussed at the time we were trying to drag together a > contribution for the February IGF consultation. > > Important issue for some, but I think discussion was left with the > suggestion that it might make a good subject for a workshop. [with IGC coordinator hat on] There is also a still-pending request to develop an IGC statement on RFC 6852 (or at least to try to do so) which has been deferred, but has not been decided against. Greetings, Norbert > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: JFC Morfin > Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > As I announced it on Aungust 28th, I consider appealing RFC 6852 (the > market oriented ISOConsortium rather than the better Internet oriented > IETF). For calendar reasons I would have to foreward it this week. > > The reason why is that I gave the IAB, IETF and ISOC Chairs all the > time before and after the WCIT to explain the Internet research, > engineering and users communities their vision of the Internet > technical evolution and to clarify their "OpenStand" strategy, in > relation with our expectations for an "OpenUse" architectural effort > (a better, neutral and secure use of the Internet). > > What do they think better to foster with the other stakeholders (Govs, > Civil Society and International Organizations): cooperation, > coopetition, or competition? Or do they think the Internet > technological "statUS-quo" under the self-governance of the private > sector is a more most advisable incremental development path? In such > a case we would be better to keep and protect it: organizing its > "adminance" (technical governance) together, within their market > monopoly framework, as we did for ICANN. > > I will come back on this in the coming days, but I would already like > to know if some have new positions to suggest. I plan to look > carefully at the positions already expressed by Stephane Bortzmeyer, > Michael Gurstein, Daniel Kalchev, Avri Doria, Lee McKnight, Suresh > Ramasubramanian, Kerry Brown, Norbert Bollow, Dominique Lacroix, > McTim, Adam Peake, Louis Pouzin, Carlos Alfonzo, Ian Peter, Nick > Ashton-Hart, Alejandro Pisanty, and others on ther lists. > > I underline that it cannot be a direct debate on the very mission of > the IETF and of the Civil Society technical involvement: it can only > directly consider the respect of the RFC 2026 Internet standard > process and RFC 4845 IAB publication process in publishing RFC 6852. > Otherwise I would be dismissed. So, the point is to show that due to > the very nature of the matter at hand they could/should have used > other rules, and therefore that they had taken decisions. > > I pland to object these decisions as inadequate in making everyone > understand where they, IETF and we stand. And therefore to have a > decision to publish a clarification on the way RFC 6852 does not > conflict with : > - RFC 3869 (IAB Concerns and Recommendations regarding Internet > Research and Evolution) > - and RFC 3935 (mission and core values of the ITEF). The appeal is in > three rounds: one to the IETF, with escalation to the IAB and final to > ISOC. > > I have several times strategically appealed the IESG/IAB. The effort > of this appeal would only be acceptable for me if it truely helps the > community, clarifying how to develop and launching an OpenUse strategy > by Civil Society and open to Govs and international organizations, > with the cooperation of the engineering community and based upon a > reliable and performing better internet, towards a people centered > better use of the Internet. > > Comments welcome. > jfc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 03:37:22 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, thanks". And mostly because of  the lack of clear principles on methodology.  We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. The time for that discussion is right.  We may not get a full consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points".  Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be VERY helpful.  My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ.  I would love to hear others on this though 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations.  Should we discuss a minimum quota? 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners  around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... 5. What will be the better  choice in the cases where a choice must be made between experience and representation, or between experience and opportunity for growth? 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there physically"? 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? 8. ..... many more...:) Nnennna   ________________________________ From: parminder To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for forwarding my name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed for the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from the IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, do not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to contribute - to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we will get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help anyone in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even better way. I wantright awayto put out my intentions regarding above so that I do not appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion only after the process is completed. I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We have a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much prefer that we overdo it rather than underdo it. parminder PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the chances of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have already been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to postpone raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report by the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for this working group before I released the names of the candidates. By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 names. Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in preselecting the IGC nominees. The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) Avri Doria (N America) Carlos Afonso (A America) Don McClean (N America) Grace Githaiga (Africa) Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) William Drake (Europe) I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. Best regards Anriette On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >Dear all *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation* *Background* I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society that know them and that have worked with them. I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. The composition of the selection group was as follows: Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and convenor of the group. I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much of the period that we had to do our work. To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. *Nominees* To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them first in case they have any objection to this. *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' or supported by other individuals or organisations. To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a requirement in the call for nominations. *Scoring process* Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. The criteria were as follows: * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes. * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with conflicting interests. *Shortlist* Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to regional and gender balance. *Submission to CSTD Chair* After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community. My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. Anriette Esterhuysen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 03:51:31 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:51:31 +0100 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hello, I really think a "systemic approach of the selection process of MS." But as formulated by Ayesha, I could understand that this aspect will also be discussed at the workshop. Baudouin SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2013/3/19 Norbert Bollow > Update: Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce is > proposing to change the title to "MS selection processes: > Accountability and transparency" which I think is a clear improvement, > as it much better communicates what the proposed workshop is about > specifically. She writes also that "there will be other workshop > proposals on multistakeholder principles more generally", so it makes > a lot of sense to differentiate in this way. > > Are there any objections to this proposed change? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > The template is as follows: > > > > > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > > > > > MS processes: Strengthening accountability and transparency > > > > > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > > > (max 500 characters): > > > > > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > > > > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the > > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to > > > share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > > > practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could > > > also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, > > > including ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at > > > times from overlaps between stakeholder categories. > > > > > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > > > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > > > > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > > > are defined and represented? > > > > > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > > > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to > > > work from?) > > > > > > Indication of workshop format: > > > > > > At the IGF, multistakeholder panel discussion with significant time > > > for interventions from the floor, followed by an open online > > > consensus process to draft an outcome document. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:15:00 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:15:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Supreme Court Applies First Sale Doctrine Worldwide | Intellectual Property Watch Message-ID: <51497004.6000008@gmail.com> http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/19/us-supreme-court-applies-first-sale-doctrine-worldwide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ip-watch+%28Intellectual+Property+Watch%29 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 04:19:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:19:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] US Supreme Court Applies First Sale Doctrine Worldwide | Intellectual Property Watch In-Reply-To: <51497004.6000008@gmail.com> References: <51497004.6000008@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/**03/19/us-supreme-court-** > applies-first-sale-doctrine-**worldwide/?utm_source=** > feedburner&utm_medium=feed&**utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ip-watch+** > %28Intellectual+Property+**Watch%29 > > > Awesome. Can't wait to read the Judgment in its entirety but the article looks promising. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 20 04:26:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:26:50 +0100 Subject: URGENT Re: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: References: <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> <51480AB9.5050900@itforchange.net> <51481195.6000907@apc.org> <51481540.3080707@itforchange.net> <20130319094821.7811d98f@quill.bollow.ch> <51482E7B.8050400@apc.org> <20130319111543.212efbdb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319130223.70273e0f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130319162609.6e8ae750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130320092650.1724e9d7@quill.bollow.ch> Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > I really think a "systemic approach of the selection process of MS." > But as formulated by Ayesha, I could understand that this aspect will > also be discussed at the workshop. IMO, the current text certainly allows the workshop to take that direction. I'd suggest though that this would require someone to write a good background paper that really gets people thinking about the systemic aspects. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:30:31 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:30:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hello, Ian you are certainly right and it is in this sense that I think has a systems approach to allow us to properly elucidate the concept first and then make an assessment of the application of the concept and then throw the MS bases new directions. In my opinion, we should never exclude that whatever option we are partner of public authorities and the private sector. Baudouin 2013/3/19 Ian Peter > I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of > comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna > earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, > I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. > > But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg > “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas > suggestions were > > Objectives > > 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism > 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion > 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder > representation > 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward > 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate > 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. > > Nnenna also suggested > > Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, > discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of > discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And > drafting can take place. > > To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably > even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. > While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and > discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding > these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better > workshop. > > And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is > well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the > multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a > workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards > development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than > attempts to interpret past writings. > > > Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have > asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else > for it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our > submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the > 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without > much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on *'Modalities for selection of (non gov) > stakeholder representatives for public bodies'* . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was > was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of > the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the > wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of *'how traditional telecom > regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to > the Internet'* . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there > could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, > well I propose we have a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops > proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the > 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just > triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of > 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very > logical to put them together. > > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. > Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. > > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and > seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to > be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role > entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to > be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:37:22 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:37:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go In-Reply-To: <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> References: <8961DC43-AD43-433C-9686-8EB1EB760760@acm.org> <74FAB608-97B6-4888-98A2-DFEEAD44F5AD@hserus.net> <5144591F.7000508@itforchange.net> <131B61D72A55457B90641B0E1FE2A1FE@Toshiba> <51463D97.1010503@apc.org> <5147DB23.2030005@itforchange.net> <1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hello, Ian you are certainly right and it is in this sense that I think has a systemic approach to allow us to properly elucidate the concept first and then make an assessment of the application of the concept and then throw the MS bases new directions. In my opinion, we should never exclude that whatever option we are partner of public authorities and the private sector. Baudouin 2013/3/19 Ian Peter > I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of > comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna > earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, > I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration. > > But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg > “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas > suggestions were > > Objectives > > 1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism > 2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion > 3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder > representation > 4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward > 5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate > 6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD. > > Nnenna also suggested > > Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, > discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of > discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And > drafting can take place. > > To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably > even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. > While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and > discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding > these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better > workshop. > > And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below. > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is > well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the > multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a > workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards > development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than > attempts to interpret past writings. > > > Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? > > > Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have > asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else > for it. > > I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals > > One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our > submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the > 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without > much ado. > > Second should be a workshop on *'Modalities for selection of (non gov) > stakeholder representatives for public bodies'* . > > Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was > was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of > the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the > wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of *'how traditional telecom > regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to > the Internet'* . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there > could be few more pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, > well I propose we have a workshop on this question. > > Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops > proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals > > > parminder > > > > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > > Dear all > > I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive. > > Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be > tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before) > and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe > that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results > whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill > proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental > SGs about how to improve processes. > > My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to > complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work. > > And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a > workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try > and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov > stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We > could also discuss the categorisation of these > constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA > community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote: > > So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly > that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like > dropping involvement on this issue altogether. > > But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and > clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and > technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not > ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for > clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others > have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining > letter to anyone. > > Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think > keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our > objectives here. > > Ian Peter > > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on > selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC > > Hi Parminder > > snipping... > > On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > > but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the > 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just > triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense > > > I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of > 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very > logical to put them together. > > > So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with > the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just > governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency > representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial > independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's > bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective > views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the > topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't > like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to > deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics > who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary > expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see > themselves that way and feel they are CS. > > Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that > non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group. > Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and > demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS > could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't > represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we > participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the > networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS > people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some > settings, but that's another conversation. > > So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the > governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. > Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves? > > > Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good > at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when > other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies > that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in > a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write > to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's > to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance, > it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course, > experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal > remains valid. > > > If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and > seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to > be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role > entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to > be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic. > > > My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but > instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the > processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to > enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we > could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth > it could be worth a try. > > Best > > Bill > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Wed Mar 20 05:31:58 2013 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:31:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] "The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" Message-ID: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE80294A6@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Dear list members, For those of you who are particularly interested in the ongoing debate on the international law applicable to cyber warfare, please find attached both the link to, as well as the abstract of the recently published Tallinn Manual which is issued by Cambridge University Press and accessible online: http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html "The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, written at the invitation of the Centre by an independent 'International Group of Experts', is the result of a three-year effort to examine how extant international law norms apply to this 'new' form of warfare. The Tallinn Manual pays particular attention to the jus ad bellum, the international law governing the resort to force by States as an instrument of their national policy, and the jus in bello, the international law regulating the conduct of armed conflict (also labelled the law of war, the law of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law). Related bodies of international law, such as the law of State responsibility and the law of the sea, are dealt within the context of these topics. The Tallinn Manual is not an official document, but instead an expression of opinions of a group of independent experts acting solely in their personal capacity. It does not represent the views of the Centre, our Sponsoring Nations, or NATO. It is also not meant to reflect NATO doctrine. Nor does it reflect the position of any organization or State represented by observers." Warm regards, Philipp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 05:36:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:06:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] "The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" In-Reply-To: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE80294A6@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> References: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE80294A6@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Message-ID: <359F4D0C-99D3-4FF0-9886-91C4FBE48926@hserus.net> I read through it all. As voluntary codes of practice go, it is ideal - and very well done indeed. The problem of course is that there are two or three flies in the ointment here. 1. Countries which make a deliberate policy decision to use non state actors as a plausibly deniable instrument of state policy to target civilian and military offshore targets alike, are likely to continue doing so, non binding code of practice or not, UN treaty or not. 2. The manual makes it abundantly clear that civilian facilities are not to be targeted in any such "cyber warfare" and includes nuclear power stations. The issue is where these become "dual use" or are claimed to be dual use, used to enrich weapons grade uranium rather than simply generate power. My reading of the manual makes this still remain a gray area for any attacks using malware. --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 15:01, Philipp Mirtl wrote: > Dear list members, > > For those of you who are particularly interested in the ongoing debate on the international law applicable to cyber warfare, please find attached both the link to, as well as the abstract of the recently published Tallinn Manual which is issued by Cambridge University Press and accessible online: > > http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html > > „The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, written at the invitation of the Centre by an independent ‘International Group of Experts’, is the result of a three-year effort to examine how extant international law norms apply to this ‘new’ form of warfare. The Tallinn Manual pays particular attention to the jus ad bellum, the international law governing the resort to force by States as an instrument of their national policy, and the jus in bello, the international law regulating the conduct of armed conflict (also labelled the law of war, the law of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law). Related bodies of international law, such as the law of State responsibility and the law of the sea, are dealt within the context of these topics. > > The Tallinn Manual is not an official document, but instead an expression of opinions of a group of independent experts acting solely in their personal capacity. It does not represent the views of the Centre, our Sponsoring Nations, or NATO. It is also not meant to reflect NATO doctrine. Nor does it reflect the position of any organization or State represented by observers.“ > > Warm regards, > > Philipp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 07:13:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:13:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> References: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20130320121304.007b96ca@quill.bollow.ch> +1 proposal 1 +1 proposal 2 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:45:07 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:45:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Supreme Court Applies First Sale Doctrine Worldwide | Intellectual Property Watch In-Reply-To: References: <51497004.6000008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51497713.6030702@gmail.com> Yes, there are such contradictory moves in the US. But at least there is movement, govt seems to have recognised that these money making firms are not going to stop favouring their own rentier interests for the common good of the US. Adam Smith warned of rents, so did the Bible for that matter. And well, hardly a radical economist, Keynes called for the euthanasia of the rentier class. Calling for better regulation of rents would make me a conservative if the centre was not so right wing. Which is funny really, if you think about it... On 2013/03/20 10:19 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/19/us-supreme-court-applies-first-sale-doctrine-worldwide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ip-watch+%28Intellectual+Property+Watch%29 > > > > Awesome. Can't wait to read the Judgment in its entirety but the > article looks promising. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Mar 20 07:24:57 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:54:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <20130320033706.GA8958@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: +1 proposal 1 +1 proposal 2 However, with regards to proposal one, I would like to suggest a different format. Rather than having a panel, why don't we have a structured discussion around a fairly extensive set of pre-determined questions, in the vein of some of the main sessions of the past? For each question, we could invite one respondent beforehand to answer. The rest of the discussion would be open. This would allow for a far wider range of people to contribute their views on this topic. Part of the problem with the discussion on multistakeholderism at present is that we hear far too few voices on the topic. If we are to move forward on this issue, I think making conscious efforts to broaden participation in the debate should be an integral part of what we do. I would be happy to help develop this idea further. My apologies, Sala, if you feel I should have posted this note on a different thread. Seeing the nature of some of the comments, I wasn't sure what would be the best place to mention this. Thanks and best, Anja On 20 March 2013 10:23, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi All, > > Though you have my support for both proposals but they need more work > and carry very generic titles. In the first workshop proposal, its > very open ended. This is bound to be merged with something else. > > In the second proposal, there is significant work from APC about > Spectrum for Development and this proposal should be revisited to be > more focused because there is a possibility that it will be either > merged around with something about the history of the Internet etc or > something. Should I have been on the MAG, I would have had to push > these two proposals into mergers. > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 - Reform topic to be more focused. Work with > proposed partners to improve the working title - You may want to > explore Multistakeholderism and the evolution of Internet Principles > or something > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 2 - The history of Telecomes, reforms, de > regularization, spectrum for development, impacts on the future can > come into making this more focused. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > +1 proposal 1 > > +1 proposal 2 > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:11:44AM +1200, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ( > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com) wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types > of > >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > >> > >> > >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > >> > >> > >> - Workshop Proposal 1 > >> - Workshop Proposal 2 > >> > >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the > >> following means:- > >> > >> > >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > >> > >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > >> > >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > >> > >> -1 Workshop Proposal > >> > >> > >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so > please > >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the > thematics > >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on > previous > >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to > collect > >> responses. > >> > >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow > us > >> to submit the same on time. > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> > >> Sala > >> *(co-coordinator)* > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 20 07:28:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:28:37 +0100 Subject: Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of > organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming > months Currently on board are: * IGC (specifically, Ian Peter may be moderating the workshop on behalf of the IGC - nothing is decided in regard to that yet, but this looks like a plausible possibility) * Anriette ("civil society focal point" for the CSTD WG) * International Chamber of Commerce / Ayesha Hassan ("business community focal point" for the CSTD WG) * ISOC / Constance Bommelaer ("technical and academic community focal point" for the CSTD WG) I'm not sure what precisely you mean with bringing "a much larger number of organizations to the table" in order to "iron out differences over the coming months"??? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 20 07:31:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 04:31:36 -0700 Subject: Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130320113136.GA2290@hserus.net> Do we have consensus within the IGC on what constitutes ms'ism, just to start with? Norbert Bollow [20/03/13 12:28 +0100]: >Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of >> organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming >> months > >Currently on board are: >* IGC (specifically, Ian Peter may be moderating the workshop on behalf > of the IGC - nothing is decided in regard to that yet, but this looks > like a plausible possibility) >* Anriette ("civil society focal point" for the CSTD WG) >* International Chamber of Commerce / Ayesha Hassan ("business > community focal point" for the CSTD WG) >* ISOC / Constance Bommelaer ("technical and academic community > focal point" for the CSTD WG) > >I'm not sure what precisely you mean with bringing "a much larger >number of organizations to the table" in order to "iron out differences >over the coming months"??? > >Greetings, >Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 20 07:59:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:59:48 +0100 Subject: Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <20130320113136.GA2290@hserus.net> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130320113136.GA2290@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130320125948.59e9dd48@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Do we have consensus within the IGC on what constitutes ms'ism, just > to start with? Good question. I'll avoid the risk of potentially making a fool of myself by avoiding to answer it in public. :-) Privately: - I think that we don't understand multistakeholderism any better yet than most people understand time. What I know is that most people (including everyone who hasn't studied modern physics, including in particular general relativity and modern conceptions of cosmology, and the arguments against what is known as the "cosmic censorship hypothesis") have wrong conceptions about what time is, and after having spent a good deal of time on that kind of stuff, I'm not sure that my understanding is that much better. :-) Nevertheless, the naive conception of time is good enough for most practical purposes, and I think that the various existing conceptions of multistakeholderism are also good in that it's possible to have a worthwhile conversation on accountability and transparency in regard to "multistakeholder selection processes" with a focus on the kind of situations that come up with the UN CSTD WG kind of multistakeholderism. The kind of approach used in what I sometimes call "the real world" (meaning IETF etc.), where everyone interested can join and those who don't have what it takes to understand what's going on will generally leave on their own accord before too long, and get ignored otherwise, is IMO much better, but effectively interfacing that kind of model with governments is still an unsolved problem I think. So maybe there is no real alternative to accepting some kind of "representative multistakeholderism" for that interface? If so, we need accountability and transparency in regard to the processes that select those representatives. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 20 08:01:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:31:33 +0530 Subject: Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <20130320125948.59e9dd48@quill.bollow.ch> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130320113136.GA2290@hserus.net> <20130320125948.59e9dd48@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6435F89C-D6AC-4232-8DCE-80D754BF0A4E@hserus.net> This did get copied to the list - but well, it is as good an answer as we're likely to get, and much more relevant to the mandate of this list than some other emails. So, no harm, no foul - and thanks for your thoughts. --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 17:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Do we have consensus within the IGC on what constitutes ms'ism, just >> to start with? > > Good question. I'll avoid the risk of potentially making a fool of > myself by avoiding to answer it in public. :-) > > Privately: - I think that we don't understand multistakeholderism any > better yet than most people understand time. What I know is that most > people (including everyone who hasn't studied modern physics, including > in particular general relativity and modern conceptions of cosmology, > and the arguments against what is known as the "cosmic censorship > hypothesis") have wrong conceptions about what time is, and after > having spent a good deal of time on that kind of stuff, I'm not sure > that my understanding is that much better. :-) > > Nevertheless, the naive conception of time is good enough for most > practical purposes, and I think that the various existing conceptions > of multistakeholderism are also good in that it's possible to have a > worthwhile conversation on accountability and transparency in regard to > "multistakeholder selection processes" with a focus on the kind of > situations that come up with the UN CSTD WG kind of multistakeholderism. > > The kind of approach used in what I sometimes call "the real > world" (meaning IETF etc.), where everyone interested can join and > those who don't have what it takes to understand what's going on will > generally leave on their own accord before too long, and get ignored > otherwise, is IMO much better, but effectively interfacing that kind of > model with governments is still an unsolved problem I think. So maybe > there is no real alternative to accepting some kind of "representative > multistakeholderism" for that interface? If so, we need accountability > and transparency in regard to the processes that select those > representatives. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 20 08:02:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:02:11 +0100 Subject: Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <20130320125948.59e9dd48@quill.bollow.ch> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <20130320122837.4b1a0a1b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130320113136.GA2290@hserus.net> <20130320125948.59e9dd48@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130320130211.14c51d57@quill.bollow.ch> Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Do we have consensus within the IGC on what constitutes ms'ism, just > > to start with? > > Good question. I'll avoid the risk of potentially making a fool of > myself by avoiding to answer it in public. :-) Oops - and then I went on and did just that :-/ Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Mar 20 08:27:33 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:27:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 Bill On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > (co-coordinator) > <2013 IGC Workshop Proposals Draft.doc>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 09:20:16 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:20:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And Nnenna's given some great ideas. But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather than a postmortem on what was and might have been. I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably me included.) Adam On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: > The discussion, I think, has starte d. It might have taken off in a > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on methodology. > We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still > have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, but > at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for > discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for > Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles document, > that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be VERY > helpful. > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, > I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and > the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in so > many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a "a > clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". > Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted to > follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. > Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear > others on this though > Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should we > discuss a minimum quota? > Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any > "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the same > faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike > the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths > while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues and > manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive > "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" > people... > What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made > between experience and representation, or between experience and opportunity > for growth? > Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to > which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say "we" > and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous > with "people who can travel and be there physically"? > How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need to > be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has > "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? > ..... many more...:) > > > Nnennna > > > ________________________________ > From: parminder > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > > Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. > > I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for forwarding my > name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. > > Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed for > the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or > after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from the > IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. > > We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final > selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, do > not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to contribute - > to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we will > get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help anyone > in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even better > way. > > I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do not > appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion only > after the process is completed. > > I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by > some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too > easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and > against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We have > a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not > directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our > internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much prefer > that we overdo it rather than underdo it. > > parminder > > PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the chances > of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no > one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... > However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have already > been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to postpone > raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report by > the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. > > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for > this working group before I released the names of the candidates. > > By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person > did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 > names. > > Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on > the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put > into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their > assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in > preselecting the IGC nominees. > > The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted > candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: > > (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) > > Avri Doria (N America) > Carlos Afonso (A America) > Don McClean (N America) > Grace Githaiga (Africa) > Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) > Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) > Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) > William Drake (Europe) > > I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from > developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who > had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise > to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of > the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. > > Best regards > > Anriette > > > On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > Enhanced Cooperation* > > *Background* > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > that know them and that have worked with them. > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > convenor of the group. > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > of the period that we had to do our work. > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > *Nominees* > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > first in case they have any objection to this. > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > requirement in the call for nominations. > > *Scoring process* > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy > processes. > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > conflicting interests. > > > *Shortlist* > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > regional and gender balance. > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure > yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that > the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated > themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, > there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through > participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from > the broader internet community. > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 20 09:22:58 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:22:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support workshop 1. I do not support workshop 2, not as a caucus proposal. As Bill told us, he's been working on a similar proposal, has developed questions, reached agreement on co-organizers. I think it was a bit quick to call for consensus on a caucus proposal when a member's said they are already doing something similar. It makes no sense to me to have the caucus propose something that would tend to force a merger with work a member's already done. Ask that we hold on proposal 2. Thanks, Adam On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 > > > Bill > > > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to > submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > (co-coordinator) > <2013 IGC Workshop Proposals > Draft.doc>____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 10:01:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:01:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" Message-ID: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> My reflections on the recent "stakeholder" discussions and what the larger meaning of these might be... for MSism and for democracy. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=710&action=edit&message =6&postpost=v2 http://tinyurl.com/cd2fo32 Comments appreciated. Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 10:27:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:27:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Resend: Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" Message-ID: <04f401ce2577$087da130$1978e390$@gmail.com> It looks like I sent folks to the edit page again, sorry... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my -adventures-in-stakeholderland/ http://tinyurl.com/ce582jb M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP-SC at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" My reflections on the recent "stakeholder" discussions and what the larger meaning of these might be... for MSism and for democracy. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=710&action=edit&message =6&postpost=v2 http://tinyurl.com/cd2fo32 Comments appreciated. Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 10:43:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:43:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing Message-ID: Dear All, For those of you who will be in Beijing for the ICANN meeting, I have the pleasure of extending this invitation to you. See below for details. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM Subject: [ALAC] APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing To: ALAC Working List , At-Large Worldwide < at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, apralo < apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, euro-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org, lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org, afri-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org, na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear ALAC Colleagues and Members of the At-Large Community, I am pleased to share with you the finalized program for the APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing (attached and pasted below). Holly Raiche and I hope that you will all attend and participate in the discussions, which will focus on end user protection related to new gTLDs and community readiness for IDN Variant TLDs. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Co-Chair, APRALO Beijing Organizing Committee ALAC, Executive Committee Vice Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group --- *APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable * *@ ICANN 46 [Beijing, PRC]* Date: 8 April 2013 (Monday) Time: 17:00-19:00 Meeting Room: Function Room 6 ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will bring a dramatic expansion of the Top Level Domain Space where 1930 new gTLD applications have been received. 303 (15.7%) of the new gTLD applications are from the Asia Pacific region and 100 (86%) of the new gTLD applications for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) are for the languages of the Asia Pacific region. The APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing will feature discussions on two thematic areas related to the new gTLDs with an emphasis on issues of concern to the end user and the public interest. [17:00-18:00] Policy Roundtable I - End User Protection with New gTLDs [18:00-19:00] Policy Roundtable II - Community Readiness for IDN Variant TLDs *Policy Roundtable I **[17:00-18:00]*** Theme: New gTLDs and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific Region Topic: End User Protection with New gTLDs Discussion Questions: 1. How can end users be best protected in the event that new gTLDs fail or are unsustainable? 2. What are the issues associated with turning applicant commitments into contractual obligations? 3. What are the issues related to the enforceability of contractual obligations and what recommendations should be made regarding the scaling up of ICANN compliance? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) *Lead Discussants:* 1. End User – Jeremy Malcolm (Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International) 2. Government – Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) 3. Business – Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) 4. ICANN Compliance - Maguy Serad (Vice President, ICANN Contractual Compliance Services) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board, ICANN Legal & Law Enforcement. * * *Policy Roundtable II **[18:00-19:00]*** Theme: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific region. Topic: Community Readiness for IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) Discussion Questions: 1. Will the introduction of IDN Variant TLDs de-stabilize the Internet and undermine its security? 2. What is the level of readiness among language communities already active in ICANN in forming “Generation Panels” to propose script character repertoires and variant rules for the Root Zone that will enable variant IDN TLDs? What are the key issues in moving forward? 3. How can the readiness of language communities not yet active in ICANN be supported? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) Moderator: Edmon Chung (Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group & At-Large IDN Policy Liaison) * * *Discussants:* · Arabic Script - *Sarmad* Hussain (Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science, Pakistan) · Chinese Script – Wang Wei (China Domain Name Consortium) · Indic Script - Ram Mohan (Afilias) · Japanese Script – Hiro Hotta / Yoshiro Yonaya (Japan Registry Services) *· **Khmer Script - Norbert Klein (Internet Society Cambodia) *** *· *Korean Script - *Young*-*eum Lee (Korea National Open University)* ** *· **Sinhala Script - *Harsha Wijayawardhana (Internet Society Sri Lanka) ** · *ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee - *Jim Galvin (Deputy Chair, SSAC) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Variant Implementation Program Team, ICANN IDNA Root Label Generation Project Team Members, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APRALO Policy Roundtable - Finalized Program.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64748 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 avri at acm.org Wed Mar 20 10:44:57 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:44:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> Hi, I also had problems with workshop 2 as currently proposed. I was lost somewhere between thinking it was a muddled proposal and that it was trying to cram too many things into a single workshop. It is of course possible that it is my thinking that was muddled and not the proposal. So, while I support the idea which I guess is being captured in Bill's proposal (though I don't think I have seen that one), workshop 2 as currently framed seems problematic to me. But I look and see many people have supported workshop 2 as framed, so am wondering, do they think the workshop is well formed, or do they just want the topic to be on the agenda? avri On 20 Mar 2013, at 09:22, Adam Peake wrote: > I support workshop 1. > > I do not support workshop 2, not as a caucus proposal. > > As Bill told us, he's been working on a similar proposal, has > developed questions, reached agreement on co-organizers. I think it > was a bit quick to call for consensus on a caucus proposal when a > member's said they are already doing something similar. > > It makes no sense to me to have the caucus propose something that > would tend to force a merger with work a member's already done. > > Ask that we hold on proposal 2. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM, William Drake wrote: >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to >> submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> (co-coordinator) >> <2013 IGC Workshop Proposals >> Draft.doc>____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 20 10:51:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:21:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> References: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> Message-ID: I need it to be on the agenda. Of course it will probably get merged - or at least sharpen in scope and in speaker content (more important than what the description says). --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 20:14, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I also had problems with workshop 2 as currently proposed. > > I was lost somewhere between thinking it was a muddled proposal and that it was trying to cram too many things into a single workshop. It is of course possible that it is my thinking that was muddled and not the proposal. So, while I support the idea which I guess is being captured in Bill's proposal (though I don't think I have seen that one), workshop 2 as currently framed seems problematic to me. > > But I look and see many people have supported workshop 2 as framed, so am wondering, do they think the workshop is well formed, or do they just want the topic to be on the agenda? > > avri > > > On 20 Mar 2013, at 09:22, Adam Peake wrote: > >> I support workshop 1. >> >> I do not support workshop 2, not as a caucus proposal. >> >> As Bill told us, he's been working on a similar proposal, has >> developed questions, reached agreement on co-organizers. I think it >> was a bit quick to call for consensus on a caucus proposal when a >> member's said they are already doing something similar. >> >> It makes no sense to me to have the caucus propose something that >> would tend to force a merger with work a member's already done. >> >> Ask that we hold on proposal 2. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 >>> >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >>> >>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >>> >>> -1 Workshop Proposal >>> >>> >>> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >>> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >>> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >>> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >>> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >>> responses. >>> >>> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to >>> submit the same on time. >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> (co-coordinator) >>> <2013 IGC Workshop Proposals >>> Draft.doc>____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 10:56:31 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:56:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] Message-ID: Dear All, We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, please let us know asap. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > > - Workshop Proposal 1 > - Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > *(co-coordinator)* > -- 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:03:09 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: haters gonna hate. : ) On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > My reflections on the recent "stakeholder" discussions and what the larger > meaning of these might be... for MSism and for democracy. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=710&action=edit&message > =6&postpost=v2 > > http://tinyurl.com/cd2fo32 > > Comments appreciated. > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:06:10 2013 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:06:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Workshop 1 +1 Workshop 2 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the Draft > Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, please let > us know asap. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> Workshop Proposal 1 >> Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >> the following means:- >> >> >> If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> (co-coordinator) > > > > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 20 11:11:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:41:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5149D1B0.7090209@itforchange.net> of course + 1 for both On Wednesday 20 March 2013 08:36 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > +1 Workshop 1 > +1 Workshop 2 > > 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : >> Dear All, >> >> We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the Draft >> Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, please let >> us know asap. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >>> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >>> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >>> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >>> >>> >>> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >>> >>> Workshop Proposal 1 >>> Workshop Proposal 2 >>> >>> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >>> the following means:- >>> >>> >>> If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >>> >>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >>> >>> -1 Workshop Proposal >>> >>> >>> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >>> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >>> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >>> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >>> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >>> responses. >>> >>> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >>> to submit the same on time. >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> (co-coordinator) >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 admin at alkasir.com Wed Mar 20 11:13:16 2013 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:13:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <5149D1B0.7090209@itforchange.net> References: <5149D1B0.7090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Support both (+1) Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder wrote: > > of course + 1 for both > > On Wednesday 20 March 2013 08:36 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > +1 Workshop 1 > +1 Workshop 2 > > 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > > Dear All, > > We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the Draft > Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, please let > us know asap. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > Workshop Proposal 1 > Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the following means:- > > > If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > (co-coordinator) > > > -- > 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 toml at communisphere.com Wed Mar 20 11:25:46 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:25:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> +1 on both. Mergers as appropriate. On 3/20/2013 10:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the > Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, > please let us know asap. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the > types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should > co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single > document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on > the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > * Workshop Proposal 1 > * Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals > through the following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so > please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make > on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you > please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was > discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave > this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to > allow us to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > /(co-coordinator)/ > > > > > -- > 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:35:53 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:35:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> References: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> Message-ID: I do not see this as a 'final workshop proposal', but a rough draft to be refined. I want the topic on the table, with the IGC as one of the organizers. We don't have time to refine and decide, but I do want the issue on the IGC workshop agenda. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 20 March 2013 09:44, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I also had problems with workshop 2 as currently proposed. > > I was lost somewhere between thinking it was a muddled proposal and that > it was trying to cram too many things into a single workshop. It is of > course possible that it is my thinking that was muddled and not the > proposal. So, while I support the idea which I guess is being captured in > Bill's proposal (though I don't think I have seen that one), workshop 2 as > currently framed seems problematic to me. > > But I look and see many people have supported workshop 2 as framed, so am > wondering, do they think the workshop is well formed, or do they just want > the topic to be on the agenda? > > avri > > > On 20 Mar 2013, at 09:22, Adam Peake wrote: > > > I support workshop 1. > > > > I do not support workshop 2, not as a caucus proposal. > > > > As Bill told us, he's been working on a similar proposal, has > > developed questions, reached agreement on co-organizers. I think it > > was a bit quick to call for consensus on a caucus proposal when a > > member's said they are already doing something similar. > > > > It makes no sense to me to have the caucus propose something that > > would tend to force a merger with work a member's already done. > > > > Ask that we hold on proposal 2. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > >> > >> - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 > >> > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> wrote: > >> > >> If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > >> > >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > >> > >> If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: > >> > >> -1 Workshop Proposal > >> > >> > >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so > please > >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the > thematics > >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on > previous > >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to > collect > >> responses. > >> > >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow > us to > >> submit the same on time. > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> > >> Sala > >> (co-coordinator) > >> <2013 IGC Workshop Proposals > >> Draft.doc>____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 11:40:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:40:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the MAG Message-ID: Dear MAG Members, Greetings from Fiji! This is being directed to MAG members within the IGC list. I was wondering whether there has been any formal discussion on possible extension of Workshop Due Dates. If there is, please advise. So far, we are guided by the deadline of 22 March, 2013 as is on the IGF Secretariat website. 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 avri at acm.org Wed Mar 20 11:59:36 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:59:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <7EDF75D9-5E42-4A7E-A628-66142A5FBC65@acm.org> Message-ID: On 20 Mar 2013, at 11:35, Ginger Paque wrote: > We don't have time to refine and decide, we might. i understand that the deadline is being discussed. with a postponement of a week requested. any MAG members able to comment yet? avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Mar 20 12:03:53 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 04:03:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> References: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: In my personal capacity: +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 2 Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > +1 on both. > > Mergers as appropriate. > > > On 3/20/2013 10:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the > Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, > please let us know asap. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> - Workshop Proposal 1 >> - Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >> the following means:- >> >> >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> *(co-coordinator)* >> > > > > -- > 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 13:35:10 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1363800910.70145.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 1   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; McTim Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In that case I will support it.  The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming months so that what we see in Bali is joint declarations of specific common grounds for consensus and enhanced cooperation, with commitments from different stakeholder groups that say we are cooperating in such and such a manner and are now sharing results and a way forward. --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 7:35, Ginger Paque wrote: I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. > > > >Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > >VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >Diplo Foundation >Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > >On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs >> >>It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground >> >>--srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >>On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 >>> >>>--srs (iPad) >>> >>>On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> -1 Workshop Proposal 1  as I would think we have far more productive >>>> things to take on. >>>> >>>> +1 Workshop Proposal #2 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 13:36:05 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <1363800910.70145.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <1363800910.70145.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1363800965.69225.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Ooops...corrected +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 2  Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: shaila mistry To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: McTim Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 1   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; McTim Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In that case I will support it.  The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming months so that what we see in Bali is joint declarations of specific common grounds for consensus and enhanced cooperation, with commitments from different stakeholder groups that say we are cooperating in such and such a manner and are now sharing results and a way forward. --srs (iPad) On 20-Mar-2013, at 7:35, Ginger Paque wrote: I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. > > > >Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > >VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >Diplo Foundation >Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > >On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs >> >>It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground >> >>--srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >>On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 >>> >>>--srs (iPad) >>> >>>On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> -1 Workshop Proposal 1  as I would think we have far more productive >>>> things to take on. >>>> >>>> +1 Workshop Proposal #2 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 20 19:34:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:34:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Justice Department Backs Closing Loophole For Government E-mail Snooping #Privacy #Cyber Security #ECPA Message-ID: Dear All, Read this on the Threat Post - the Kaspersky Lab Security News Services and found it interesting. I have copied the Article here but if you want to read it from the site directly: Source: http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/justice-department-backs-closing-loophole-government-e-mail-snooping-031913?utm_source=Newsletter_032013&utm_medium=Email+Marketing&utm_campaign=Newsletter&CID=&CID= Starts The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday joined a chorus of privacy advocates supporting changes to a 1986 law that currently allows the government to review some emails without a warrant. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was created before commercial e-mail existed, let alone became a primary form of communications. As currently written, the ECPA allows U.S. law enforcement to read someone's emails with just a subpeona from a federal prosecutor if the email is older than six months or is already opened. All others require a warrant from a judge. "There is no principled basis to treat e-mail less than 180 days old differently than e-mail more than 180 days old," Elana Tyrangiel, acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, testified before a House judiciary subcommittee. Editor's Pick - Illinois Outlaws Employer Requests for Facebook Passwords - T-Mobile Fixes Man-in-the-Middle Vulnerability in Wi-Fi Calling App - How To: Chrome Browser Privacy Settings Threatpost Newsletter Sign-up Technology companies such as Google and Twitter also back changes to limit government access to citizen's e-mails by requiring court-ordered searches only. "The distinctions that ECPA made in 1986 were foresighted in light of technology at the time. But in 2013, ECPA frustrates users’ reasonable expectations of privacy," said Richard Salgado, Google's director of law enforcement and information security, before the same subcommittee. "Users expect, as they should, that the documents they store online have the same Fourth Amendment protections as they do when the government wants to enter the home to seize documents stored in a desk drawer. There is no compelling policy or legal rationale for this dichotomy. He later added, "ECPA worked well for many years, and much of it remains vibrant and relevant. In significant places, however, a large gap has grown between the technological assumptions made in ECPA and the reality of how the Internet works today. This leaves us, in some circumstances, with complex and baffling rules that are both difficult to explain to users and difficult to apply." The movement to amend the law to reflect today's concerns is being led by the legislation's original author -- Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "When I led the effort to write ECPA 27 years ago, email was a novelty. No one could have imagined the way the Internet and mobile technologies would transform how we communicate and exchange information today. Three decades later, we must update this law to reflect the realities of our time, so that our federal privacy laws keep pace with American innovation and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies,” he said in a published report . Richard Littlehale, who leads an investigative unit of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified that the law as written has assisted child pornography investigations. He believes the privacy issue to be "oversstated." "The truth is that no one has put forward any evidence of pervasive law enforcement abuse of ECPA provisions," Littlehale told the House panel, according to the Associated Press. Commenting on this Article will be automatically closed on June 19, 2013. Ends -- 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Mar 20 21:45:30 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:45:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Message to the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, there is some discussion at MAG list for the extension of the deadline. But not too much. Either by Mar 25 or end of March. It is likely to be by Mar 25 in my reading. So better hurry up in any case. best, izumi 2013/3/21 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear MAG Members, > > > Greetings from Fiji! This is being directed to MAG members within the IGC > list. > > I was wondering whether there has been any formal discussion on possible > extension of Workshop Due Dates. If there is, please advise. > > So far, we are guided by the deadline of 22 March, 2013 as is on the IGF > Secretariat website. > > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Wed Mar 20 22:54:30 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:54:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <1363800965.69225.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <5A231A64-D191-43E7-BEA6-2BA19D081638@hserus.net> <13d8581c6c6.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <601C0CEA-67EC-4677-9565-56AC74AFB3C6@hserus.net> <1363800910.70145.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1363800965.69225.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 proposal 1 +-1 proposal 2 As for deadline extension, I already wrote in different thread, but will repeat here - it will likely be extended till Mar 25, but not end of March. There might be some "flexibility" but better hurry and close it now. This proposal is just an "expression of intent", not a detailed one. Given that, I support the Proposal 1, and like to support the Proposal 2 as a placeholder, but need much improvement/consensus, and in case any better proposals as Adam mentioned comes out, we might even withdraw this. As for the Proposal 1, I strongly suggest to use the term "Multistakeholder" explicitly, for title, 50-character limit is just a guideline, not a strict rule, and for description. It is the central word/concept of this workshop. Also in the description, there is no mention about MSG selection as subject, but only "accountability and transparency" which may not make sense to someone outside. I also think 90 min panel format is not sufficient for this broad and important topic. How about first 90 min Panel (or round table) and add second one as free-form discussion ? We can discuss and decide this later, of course. As for the Proposal 2, I have some question about the format of the question: "Whether traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to the Internet or not" To me, this question itself is wrong. I think one camp is trying to strengthen or evolve the existing (not quite "traditional" ) regulatory framework to cover new services such as Internet-based ones and mobile etc. Other camp is trying to maintain the existing (in a way it is also Internet tradition) non-regulatory framework for Internet (critical resources and services based on Internet) especially in the "global" and/or "transnational" or "cross-border" issues. Here, it is not "traditional or new" question, but different ideas about how state sovereignty or government power should be applied on global policy issues. I have no alternative suggestion as yet, but making a too simplistic argument may reach wrong destination, I am afraid. izumi 2013/3/21 shaila mistry > > Ooops...corrected > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 > Shaila > > > > The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > ________________________________ > From: shaila mistry > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: McTim > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:35 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > ________________________________ > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; McTim > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] > > In that case I will support it. > > The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming months so that what we see in Bali is joint declarations of specific common grounds for consensus and enhanced cooperation, with commitments from different stakeholder groups that say we are cooperating in such and such a manner and are now sharing results and a way forward. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Mar-2013, at 7:35, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs > > It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: > > > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive > > things to take on. > > > > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Mar 20 23:03:03 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:03:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the process. Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work once selected. On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great earthquake and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it should be. That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with you. And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, hopefully drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to reviewing the past or existing ones. best, izumi 2013/3/20 Adam Peake > Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. > > Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And > Nnenna's given some great ideas. > > But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather > than a postmortem on what was and might have been. > > I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the > first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of > CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent > WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, > possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we > look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather > than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably > me included.) > > Adam > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > The discussion, I think, has starte > d. It might have taken off in a > > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > methodology. > > We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we > still > > have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. > > > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, > but > > at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for > > discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. > > > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for > > Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles > document, > > that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be > VERY > > helpful. > > > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > > > Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the > CSTD, > > I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette > and > > the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in > so > > many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a > "a > > clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". > > Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted > to > > follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. > > Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear > > others on this though > > Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should > we > > discuss a minimum quota? > > Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any > > "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the > same > > faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we > strike > > the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths > > while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues > and > > manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will > arrive > > "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for > "qualified" > > people... > > What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made > > between experience and representation, or between experience and > opportunity > > for growth? > > Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to > > which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say > "we" > > and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous > > with "people who can travel and be there physically"? > > How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need > to > > be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has > > "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? > > ..... many more...:) > > > > > > Nnennna > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: parminder > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > > > > > Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. > > > > I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for > forwarding my > > name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. > > > > Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed > for > > the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or > > after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from > the > > IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. > > > > We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final > > selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, > do > > not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to > contribute - > > to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we > will > > get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help > anyone > > in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even > better > > way. > > > > I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do > not > > appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion > only > > after the process is completed. > > > > I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by > > some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too > > easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and > > against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We > have > > a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not > > directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our > > internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much > prefer > > that we overdo it rather than underdo it. > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the > chances > > of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no > > one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... > > However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have > already > > been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to > postpone > > raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report > by > > the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. > > > > > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for > > this working group before I released the names of the candidates. > > > > By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person > > did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 > > names. > > > > Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on > > the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put > > into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their > > assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in > > preselecting the IGC nominees. > > > > The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted > > candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: > > > > (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) > > > > Avri Doria (N America) > > Carlos Afonso (A America) > > Don McClean (N America) > > Grace Githaiga (Africa) > > Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) > > Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) > > Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) > > William Drake (Europe) > > > > I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from > > developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who > > had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise > > to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of > > the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. > > > > Best regards > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > > Enhanced Cooperation* > > > > *Background* > > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > > that know them and that have worked with them. > > > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > > convenor of the group. > > > > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > > of the period that we had to do our work. > > > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > > > *Nominees* > > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > > first in case they have any objection to this. > > > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > > requirement in the call for nominations. > > > > *Scoring process* > > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy > > processes. > > > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > > conflicting interests. > > > > > > *Shortlist* > > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > > regional and gender balance. > > > > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure > > yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that > > the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. > > > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated > > themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, > > there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through > > participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from > > the broader internet community. > > > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Mar 20 23:22:08 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:52:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514A7CE0.9050506@ITforChange.net> +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 2 thanks Guru On 03/20/2013 02:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types > of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We > have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your > ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > * Workshop Proposal 1 > * Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals > through the following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so > please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on > the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please > pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and > comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread > uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow > us to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > /(co-coordinator)/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 01:09:23 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:09:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY Message-ID: Dear All, There are only seven more hours before we close this Call for consensus on the Draft Workshop Proposals. The proposals are still in draft form and subject to change and improvement. This is a gentle reminder. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you to those of you who have given your feedback. We welcome those who have yet to give your views to please do so. Kind Regards, Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> - Workshop Proposal 1 >> - Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >> the following means:- >> >> >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> *(co-coordinator)* >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 03:28:01 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:28:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Louis, Better late than never. I join all friends and colleagues to congratulate you. Any work deserves a salary. in hopes to see us again Baudouin 2013/3/18 McTim > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 03:41:29 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:41:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My congratulations to all the winners of this great prize. Baudouin 2013/3/19 Gideon > Congratulations to all the remarkable people who have all contributed in their > own ways to make this world a better place. > > Gideon Rop. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM, McTim wrote: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >> >> >> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >> >> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 04:16:58 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:16:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 workshop 1 Baudouin 2013/3/19 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of > Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have > compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of > reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. > > > There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- > > > - Workshop Proposal 1 > - Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through > the following means:- > > > *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* > > -1 Workshop Proposal > > > You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please > make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics > of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous > threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as > possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect > responses. > > We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us > to submit the same on time. > > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > *(co-coordinator)* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Mar 21 08:45:26 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:45:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Supporting proposals 1+2 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 From: Izumi AIZU Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Izumi AIZU Date: quarta-feira, 20 de março de 2013 23:54 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] +1 proposal 1 +-1 proposal 2 As for deadline extension, I already wrote in different thread, but will repeat here - it will likely be extended till Mar 25, but not end of March. There might be some "flexibility" but better hurry and close it now. This proposal is just an "expression of intent", not a detailed one. Given that, I support the Proposal 1, and like to support the Proposal 2 as a placeholder, but need much improvement/consensus, and in case any better proposals as Adam mentioned comes out, we might even withdraw this. As for the Proposal 1, I strongly suggest to use the term "Multistakeholder" explicitly, for title, 50-character limit is just a guideline, not a strict rule, and for description. It is the central word/concept of this workshop. Also in the description, there is no mention about MSG selection as subject, but only "accountability and transparency" which may not make sense to someone outside. I also think 90 min panel format is not sufficient for this broad and important topic. How about first 90 min Panel (or round table) and add second one as free-form discussion ? We can discuss and decide this later, of course. As for the Proposal 2, I have some question about the format of the question: "Whether traditional telecom regulations, norms and institutions apply to the Internet or not" To me, this question itself is wrong. I think one camp is trying to strengthen or evolve the existing (not quite "traditional" ) regulatory framework to cover new services such as Internet-based ones and mobile etc. Other camp is trying to maintain the existing (in a way it is also Internet tradition) non-regulatory framework for Internet (critical resources and services based on Internet) especially in the "global" and/or "transnational" or "cross-border" issues. Here, it is not "traditional or new" question, but different ideas about how state sovereignty or government power should be applied on global policy issues. I have no alternative suggestion as yet, but making a too simplistic argument may reach wrong destination, I am afraid. izumi 2013/3/21 shaila mistry > > Ooops...corrected > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 > Shaila > > > > The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > ________________________________ > From: shaila mistry > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: McTim > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:35 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > ________________________________ > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ginger Paque > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; McTim > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] > > In that case I will support it. > > The goal i hope for here is to bring a much larger number of organizations to the table to iron out differences over the coming months so that what we see in Bali is joint declarations of specific common grounds for consensus and enhanced cooperation, with commitments from different stakeholder groups that say we are cooperating in such and such a manner and are now sharing results and a way forward. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Mar-2013, at 7:35, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I certainly understand the concern expressed here about Workshop 1 on MSism. However, I think that the MAG will ask MS workshop prospective organizers to merge proposals into one more comprehensive workshop. I hope that the IGC will make this workshop proposal, so we can be involved in the eventual larger workshop. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > On 19 March 2013 20:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Let me explain. The first proposal is generic and will be one of many on the same subject so will most likely result in the same massive duplication of content we have seen in past IGFs > > It isn't something a panel or short workshop can solve or conclude either.. It is a matter for several meetings and other collaboration between stakeholders to find common ground > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 20 March 2013 6:51:20 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Same vote as McTim, -1 and +1 > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Mar-2013, at 2:47, McTim wrote: > > > -1 Workshop Proposal 1 as I would think we have far more productive > > things to take on. > > > > +1 Workshop Proposal #2 > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Mar 21 09:01:00 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:01:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 workshop 1 +1 workshop 2 Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: March-20-13 10:09 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY Dear All, There are only seven more hours before we close this Call for consensus on the Draft Workshop Proposals. The proposals are still in draft form and subject to change and improvement. This is a gentle reminder. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you to those of you who have given your feedback. We welcome those who have yet to give your views to please do so. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear All, Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- * Workshop Proposal 1 * Workshop Proposal 2 Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: -1 Workshop Proposal You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala (co-coordinator) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Mar 21 09:09:40 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:09:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130321130939.GB2541@tarvainen.info> I just heard (from a MAG member) that the deadline has been extended to Monday (25 March), and that the intent is indeed that these are only preliminary proposals, expected to be refined later. -- 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu Mar 21 09:15:54 2013 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:15:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY In-Reply-To: <20130321130939.GB2541@tarvainen.info> References: <20130321130939.GB2541@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <289881363871754@web3f.yandex.ru> Dear Colleagues Is the deadline closes today, or tomorrow WS submission is possible? Thanks! Andrey Shcherbovich 21.03.2013, 17:09, "Tapani Tarvainen" : > I just heard (from a MAG member) that the deadline has been extended > to Monday (25 March), and that the intent is indeed that these are > only preliminary proposals, expected to be refined later. > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Mar 21 10:06:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:06:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] WS proposals deadline (was Re: URGENT: Call for Consensus...) In-Reply-To: <289881363871754@web3f.yandex.ru> References: <20130321130939.GB2541@tarvainen.info> <289881363871754@web3f.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20130321150629.306f807c@quill.bollow.ch> Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > Is the deadline closes today, or tomorrow WS submission is possible? Tomorrow is definitely possible (the original, unextended deadline is tomorrow). It is said that the deadline will be extended until Monday, but that is not official yet. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 21 10:52:27 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:52:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: from the blogpost “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in the entire world … “… this group functions … as peers with a … group representing all of the governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of the citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the businesses of the world …” In place of name-calling, civil discourse. David On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > haters gonna hate. : ) > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013, michael gurstein wrote > [with corrected link]: >> It looks like I sent folks to the edit page again, sorry... >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/ >> >> http://tinyurl.com/ce582jb >> >> M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 21 11:04:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:34:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> I wish the numbers added up. --srs (iPad) On 21-Mar-2013, at 20:22, David Allen wrote: > from the blogpost > > “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in the entire world … > > “… this group functions … as peers with a … group representing all of the governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of the citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the businesses of the world …” > > In place of name-calling, civil discourse. > > David > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Mar 21 11:28:17 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:28:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] IEEE 2013 Third International Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2013) - DEADLINE EXTENSION: APRIL 1,2013 Message-ID: <01bd01ce2648$b6082150$221863f0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this Call For Paper] **************************************************************************** ********* IEEE 2013 Third International Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering (SPE2013) Part of IEEE SERVICES 2013, June 27 and July 2, 2013 Santa Clara Marriott, CA, USA (Center of Silicon Valley) http://www.servicescongress.org/2013/spe.html **************************************************************************** ********* Paper Submission Due Date EXTENDED: April 1, 2013 (regular paper 8 page, short paper 4 page) Topics of interests of SPE 2013 include, but are not limited to: -Validation and verification of S&P in clouds and services -Applied cryptography for S&P in clouds and services -Governance and management of S&P in clouds and services -Testing of S&P in clouds and services -Assessment, Auditing, and Certification of S&P in clouds and services -Risk and legal compliance of S&P in clouds and services -Education and awareness of S&P in clouds and services Workshop chairs - Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein, Germany - Zhixiong Chen, Mercy College, NY, USA - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 11:40:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:40:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] RESULTS [Call for Consensus on Workshop Proposals] Message-ID: Dear All, Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of you for participating. Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, two Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear *is very likely to change* and face improvements. We also note the comments in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all feedback in the near future. We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the Workshop Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we received the following response:- * 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. * * Workshop Proposal 1* 26 people agreed with the proposal 1 person disagreed with the proposal *Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* *Workshop Proposal 2* 21 people agreed with the proposal 3 people disagreed with the proposal 3 people abstained from commenting * Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: Subscribers of IGC Workshop Proposal 1 Workshop Proposal 2 1. McTim -1 +1 2. Ian Peter +1 +1 3. Sarah Kiden +1 4. Ginger Paque +1 +1 5. Avri Doria +1 -1 6. Nnenna +1 +1 7. Michael Gurstein +1 +1 8. Jose Felix Arias Ynche +1 9. Suresh Ramasubramanium +1 +1 10. Tapani Tarvainen +1 +1 11. Fouad Bajwa +1 +1 12. Norbert Bollow +1 +1 13. Anja Kovacs +1 +1 14. William Drake +1 -1 15. Adam Peake +1 -1 16. Oksana Prykhodko +1 +1 17. Parminder +1 +1 18. Walid Al Saqaf +1 +1 19. Thomas Lowenhaupt +1 +1 20. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro +1 +1 21. Shala Mistry +1 +1 22. Guru +1 +1 23. Izumi Aizu +1 +1 24. Boudouin Schombe +1 25. Sonigitu Ekpe +1 +1 26. Vanda Scartezini +1 +1 27. Kerry Brown +1 +1 We thank everyone for your input. Yours sincerely, Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro *Coordinators* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 IGC Workshop Proposals Draft.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 11:15:33 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:15:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Eric Schmidt warns on China's attempts to control the internet | Media | guardian.co.uk Message-ID: <514B2415.7060500@gmail.com> Makes microsoft blush? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/21/google-eric-schmidt-china-warning -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 21 11:59:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:59:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Allen wrote: > from the blogpost > > “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in > the entire world … I think this number is off by several orders of magnitude. If the T&A Focal Point decides to limit the pool to just a few hundred folk, then that is her choice, in that the CSTD is NOT a MS process, nor is it an Internet Governance process, it's a top-down, inter-governmental process that adds a few seats at the table for others to talk about EC, what it means, and how it can be further developed. I've already stated that the T&A folk have over a decade of experience in EC (doing it before the term came into being). I have no problem with them limiting their choices. > > “… this group functions … as peers with a … group representing all of the > governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of the > citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the businesses > of the world …” The key word here is "peers". How much of a vote do non-governmental folk get in the CSTD? -- 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 Thu Mar 21 12:39:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0bfa01ce2652$b0e0f670$12a2e350$@gmail.com> McTim et al you (T/A) can't have it both ways... ...one definition for purposes of exclusion and political representation and a second for inclusion and broader PR purposes--the results of the first definition being so ghastly and repulsive in their significance. Remember this discussion is about the legitimacy of the current MS processes, not about the nature of technical and academic activities/self-definitions in the real world, at which point I, of course, agree with you. The point of the blogpost, to reiterate, was not to critique MS processes as they might be useful in fairly narrow technical spheres, rather it was to point out the extreme dangers in attempting to uncritically and unreflectively apply these to larger and more "political" processes of negotiation/decision making/even consultation. In these, the lack of appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and accountability, and the use of self-serving self-definitions can be very damaging since what is being presented as one thing (e.g. representation of a significant grouping such as the technical and academic community (or for that matter Civil Society) is in fact something quite different--representation by a very small self-covenanted highly exclusionary group). FWIW, I think it is extremely important to be developing ways of responding to highly complex, rapidly evolving, otherwise intractable, multi-party issues such as for example, the need for global mechanisms to handle global Internet related and other issues that don't fit very well into traditional nation state, multilateral or sectoral stovepipes. I'm just not sure that what is being done at the moment in those areas is the right way to go. And I'm completely sure that not engaging in critique/self-critique//examination/self-examination but rather proceeding with fundamentally exclusionary processes of self-affirmation is precisely not the way to go. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Allen wrote: > from the blogpost > > ". the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 > people in the entire world . I think this number is off by several orders of magnitude. If the T&A Focal Point decides to limit the pool to just a few hundred folk, then that is her choice, in that the CSTD is NOT a MS process, nor is it an Internet Governance process, it's a top-down, inter-governmental process that adds a few seats at the table for others to talk about EC, what it means, and how it can be further developed. I've already stated that the T&A folk have over a decade of experience in EC (doing it before the term came into being). I have no problem with them limiting their choices. > > ". this group functions . as peers with a . group representing all of > the governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of > the citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the > businesses of the world ." The key word here is "peers". How much of a vote do non-governmental folk get in the CSTD? -- 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 Thu Mar 21 13:03:58 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:03:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> Just to add one point, my references to the current CSTD process in the blogpost were meant to be illustrative only i.e. one practical example of MSism "in action" when put under some stress/challenge. My larger point was what precisely was Ambassador Kramer pointing to when he mentioned MSism 17 times in his closing comments at the WCIT? M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:39 AM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim' Subject: RE: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" McTim et al you (T/A) can't have it both ways... ...one definition for purposes of exclusion and political representation and a second for inclusion and broader PR purposes--the results of the first definition being so ghastly and repulsive in their significance. Remember this discussion is about the legitimacy of the current MS processes, not about the nature of technical and academic activities/self-definitions in the real world, at which point I, of course, agree with you. The point of the blogpost, to reiterate, was not to critique MS processes as they might be useful in fairly narrow technical spheres, rather it was to point out the extreme dangers in attempting to uncritically and unreflectively apply these to larger and more "political" processes of negotiation/decision making/even consultation. In these, the lack of appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and accountability, and the use of self-serving self-definitions can be very damaging since what is being presented as one thing (e.g. representation of a significant grouping such as the technical and academic community (or for that matter Civil Society) is in fact something quite different--representation by a very small self-covenanted highly exclusionary group). FWIW, I think it is extremely important to be developing ways of responding to highly complex, rapidly evolving, otherwise intractable, multi-party issues such as for example, the need for global mechanisms to handle global Internet related and other issues that don't fit very well into traditional nation state, multilateral or sectoral stovepipes. I'm just not sure that what is being done at the moment in those areas is the right way to go. And I'm completely sure that not engaging in critique/self-critique//examination/self-examination but rather proceeding with fundamentally exclusionary processes of self-affirmation is precisely not the way to go. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Allen wrote: > from the blogpost > > ". the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 > people in the entire world . I think this number is off by several orders of magnitude. If the T&A Focal Point decides to limit the pool to just a few hundred folk, then that is her choice, in that the CSTD is NOT a MS process, nor is it an Internet Governance process, it's a top-down, inter-governmental process that adds a few seats at the table for others to talk about EC, what it means, and how it can be further developed. I've already stated that the T&A folk have over a decade of experience in EC (doing it before the term came into being). I have no problem with them limiting their choices. > > ". this group functions . as peers with a . group representing all of > the governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of > the citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the > businesses of the world ." The key word here is "peers". How much of a vote do non-governmental folk get in the CSTD? -- 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 Thu Mar 21 13:24:07 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:24:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <0bfa01ce2652$b0e0f670$12a2e350$@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0bfa01ce2652$b0e0f670$12a2e350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim et al you (T/A) can't have it both ways... why not? I see no issue with the T&A FP choosing from a subset of the T&A community, in that the subset would have a clue about EC and UN processes. That's exactly what the CS FP did, no? > > ...one definition for purposes of exclusion and political representation and > a second for inclusion and broader PR purposes--the results of the first > definition being so ghastly and repulsive in their significance. > > Remember this discussion is about the legitimacy of the current MS > processes I repeat, the CSTD is NOT a MS process. , not about the nature of technical and academic > activities/self-definitions in the real world, at which point I, of course, > agree with you. > > The point of the blogpost, to reiterate, was not to critique MS processes as > they might be useful in fairly narrow technical spheres, rather it was to > point out the extreme dangers in attempting to uncritically and > unreflectively apply these to larger and more "political" processes of > negotiation/decision making/even consultation. In these, the lack of > appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and > accountability If you find that "appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and accountability" are lacking, then blame the UN CSTD, not the FPs. , and the use of self-serving self-definitions can be very > damaging since what is being presented as one thing (e.g. representation of > a significant grouping such as the technical and academic community (or for > that matter Civil Society) is in fact something quite > different--representation by a very small self-covenanted highly > exclusionary group). Aren't all FPs choosing from a "very small self-covenanted highly exclusionary group" of activists ? -- 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 Thu Mar 21 13:34:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:34:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Just to add one point, my references to the current CSTD process in the > blogpost were meant to be illustrative only i.e. one practical example of > MSism "in action" when put under some stress/challenge. What gives you the impression that the CSTD is a MS body? > > My larger point was what precisely was Ambassador Kramer pointing to when he > mentioned MSism 17 times in his closing comments at the WCIT? not the CSTD I think!! Look, here's the latest in EC activities by the T&A: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe-ncc-hosts-brussels-roundtable-meeting-for-governments-and-regulators This is not MSism either, this is EC. When the RIPE community decides on IP address policies in an open, bottom up consensus driven manner, where ALL are welcome to voice their opinions and have equal say, then THAT is MSism in action. When the RIPE NCC (the Secretariat for the RIPE Community) holds a roundtable to help educate government folk and exchange views, that is EC not MSism. See the difference? -- 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Mar 21 13:55:49 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:55:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IEEE 2013 International Workshop on Service Security and Assurance Perspectives (WOSSAP) - DEADLINE EXTENSION: APRIL 1, 2013 Message-ID: <026b01ce265d$528428d0$f78c7a70$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this Call For Paper] **************************************************************************** ************ IEEE 2013 International Workshop on Service Security and Assurance Perspectives (WOSSAP) One day between June 27 and July 2, 2013, at Santa Clara Marriott, CA, USA (Center of Silicon Valley) within the 2013 IEEE 9th World Congress on Services. ttp://proteus.lcc.uma.es/wossap13 **************************************************************************** ************ Call for Papers Current trends in the IT industry suggest that future software systems will be very different from their counterparts today, due to greater adoption of Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the popularization of the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) paradigm. These trends point to large-scale, heterogeneous ICT infrastructures hosting applications that are dynamically built from loosely-coupled, well-separated services, where key non-functional properties like security, privacy, efficiency and reliability will be of increased and critical importance. Basic security protocols for Web Services, such as XML Security, the WS-* series of proposals, SAML, and XACML, along with numerous on-going activities targeting new SaaS scenarios, can provide a basic set of building blocks enabling Web Services and Cloud Computing to operate securely. While some of these building blocks are now firmly in place and the on-going work progresses at a fast pace, a number of challenges are still to be met for ensuring the security and trust of these scenarios. One relevant aspect is the change in the underlying model of application and service provision. Current trust models in relation to application provision, deployment, operation and control are not well-adapted for these scenarios. Actors, stakeholders, responsibilities, capabilities, liabilities of traditional computing scenarios, as well as their relations, have changed in these new scenarios, requiring new trust relationships to be established and verified at runtime during application set-up and operation. In this line certification and other assurance approaches become crucial for establishing the necessary trust relationships. Current certification schemes, however, are either insufficient in addressing the needs of such scenarios or not applicable at all and thus, they cannot be used to support and automate run-time security assessment. Likewise, novel testing mechanisms, engineering approaches, formal modelling paradigms, monitoring models, runtime support infrastructures, secure dynamic application building and service orchestration approaches, etc. are needed in order to fill other gaps and to restore the missing trust links in these new scenarios. The workshop will provide a forum for presenting research results, practical experiences, and innovative ideas in web services security. Topics of interests of WOSSAP 2013 include, but are not limited to: - Security certification for services - Assurance mechanisms for services - The role of Trusted Computing in securing Web services - Frameworks for managing, establishing and assessing inter-organizational trust relationships - Inter-organizational security policy alignment and reconciling - Trust negotiation mechanisms - Testing mechanisms and techniques for web services - Formal modeling of service-based systems - Privacy certifications for services - Secure and trusted service provisioning - Support for assurance, certification and accreditation - Secure dynamic application building and service orchestration approaches - Semantics-aware Web service security and Semantic Web - Secure orchestration of Web services - Web services and cloud computing security - Access control - Engineering approaches - Monitoring models - Runtime support infrastructures Important dates - Full Paper Submission Due Date: April 1st, 2013 - Decision Notification (Electronic): April 10th, 2013 - Camera-Ready Copy Due Date & Pre-registration Due: April 15th, 2013 Paper submission Authors are invited to submit full papers (about 8 pages) or short papers (about 4 pages) as per IEEE 8.5 x 11 manuscript guidelines (download Word templates or LaTeX templates). The submitted papers can only be in the format of PDF or WORD. Please follow the IEEE Computer Society Press Proceedings Author Guidelines to prepare your papers, respectively. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to attend the workshop and present the paper. All papers must be submitted via the confhub submission system for the SPE workshop. First time users need to register with the system first (see these instructions for details). All the accepted papers by the workshops will be included in the Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE 2013 World Congress on Services (SERVICES 2013) which will be published by IEEE Computer Society. Workshop chairs ERNESTO DAMIANI, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy MICHELE BEZZI, SAP, France ANTONIO MANA, University of Malaga, Spain Program committee ARDAGNA, CLAUDIO, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy ABIE, HABTAMU, Norwegian Computing Center, Norway MICHELE BEZZI, SAP, France BOYD, COLIN, Queensland University of Technology, Australia CUELLAR, JORGE, Siemens, Germany DAMIANI, ERNESTO, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy DAVIDS, CAROL, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA ENDICOTT-POPOVSKY, BARBARA, University of Washington, USA FERNANDEZ, EDUARDO B., Florida Atlantic University, USA GELENBE, EROL, Imperial College, United Kingdom_ GIORGINI, PAOLO, University of Trento, Italy GRAWROCK, DAVID, Intel, USA GUERGENS, SIGRID, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany JUERJENS, JAN, TU of Dortmund, Germany KIYOMOTO, SHINSAKU, KDDI R&D Labs, Japan LAMBRINOUDAKIS, COSTAS, U. of Piraeus, Greece LE METAYER, DANIEL, INRIA, France LEVI, ALBERT, Sabanci University, Turkey LOSAVIO, MICHAEL, U. of Kentucky, USA LOTZ, VOLKMAR, SAP AG, France MANA, ANTONIO, University of Malaga, Spain MARTINELLI, FABIO, CNR-IIT, Italy MARTINEZ-PEREZ, GREGORIO, U. of Murcia, Spain MENICOCCI, RENATO, FUB, Italy POSEGGA, JOAQUM, U. of Passau, Germany PRESENZA, DOMENICO, Engineering, Italy QUISQUATER, JEAN-JACQUES, U. Catholique De Louvain, Belgium RAY, INDRAKSHI, Colorado State University, USA RUDOLPH, CARSTEN, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany SORIA-RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO, ATOS R&D, Spain SPANOUDAKIS, GEORGE, City University, United Kingdom STOELEN, KETIL, University of Oslo, Norway WASHIZAKI, HIRONORI, Waseda University, Japan WESPI, ANDREAS, IBM, Switzerland YOSHIOKA, NOBUKAZU, National Institute of Informatics, Japan ZULKERNINE, MOHAMMAD, Queen's University, Canada ======================================================== For additional information please visit http://proteus.lcc.uma.es/wossap13 ======================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 14:11:17 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:11:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> No one suggested that the CSTD was a multi-stakeholder body. the reference and example was quite evidently, to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, where ISOC at least, considers discussion to be necessarily part of a multi-stakeholder process. Raising of course, all of the questions I was pointing to concerning who are the stakeholders, how are they defined and so on and so on. http://www.internetsociety.org/cstd-meeting-enhanced-cooperation-public-poli cy-issues-pertaining-internet CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet Date: 18 May 2012 Document Type: Reports Tags: Internet Governance , World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 18 May 2012 Statement by Markus Kummer, Vice-President for Public Policy, The Internet Society I am very honored to be part of this panel and I look forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue. It is nearly ten years ago that we started the WSIS process and we have come a long way. In July 2002 non-governmental stakeholders banged at the door of the Geneva Conference Centre and asked to be let in. Today, multistakeholder cooperation is the norm. The Internet Society, in its past contributions on 'enhanced cooperation', always made sure to stress the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Multistakeholder cooperation is essential to the growth of the Internet and the Information Society. In our view it is not an option - it is a must! http://unctad.org/en/Pages/cstd.aspx 14 February 2013Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation - Next Steps The Chairman of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, invites regional and stakeholder groups to hold consultations on which respective representatives they would like to be considered for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Just to add one point, my references to the current CSTD process in > the blogpost were meant to be illustrative only i.e. one practical > example of MSism "in action" when put under some stress/challenge. What gives you the impression that the CSTD is a MS body? > > My larger point was what precisely was Ambassador Kramer pointing to > when he mentioned MSism 17 times in his closing comments at the WCIT? not the CSTD I think!! Look, here's the latest in EC activities by the T&A: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe -ncc-hosts-brussels-roundtable-meeting-for-governments-and-regulators This is not MSism either, this is EC. When the RIPE community decides on IP address policies in an open, bottom up consensus driven manner, where ALL are welcome to voice their opinions and have equal say, then THAT is MSism in action. When the RIPE NCC (the Secretariat for the RIPE Community) holds a roundtable to help educate government folk and exchange views, that is EC not MSism. See the difference? -- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 21 15:12:49 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:12:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: The T/A definition from its focal point: "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical organizations/people who run it." Which is the starting point for doing the counting. And no, the discussion - in the blogpost - is not about the CSTD process (whatever may be factual about that). The referenced discussion is about MS'ism. And in the quote below, the stark disparity among so-called Stakeholder Groups, when, anyway, T/A is considered for inclusion. David On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I wish the numbers added up. > > --srs (iPad) On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:59 AM, McTim wrote: > ... > If the T&A Focal Point decides to limit the pool to just a few hundred > folk, then that is her choice, in that the CSTD is NOT a MS process > ... On Mar 21, 2013, at 1:24 PM, McTim wrote: > ... > I repeat, the CSTD is NOT a MS process. > ... > On 21-Mar-2013, at 20:22, David Allen > wrote: > >> from the blogpost >> >> “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 >> people in the entire world … >> >> “… this group functions … as peers with a … group representing all >> of the governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing >> all of the citizens of the world, and a third group representing >> all of the businesses of the world …” >> >> In place of name-calling, civil discourse. >> >> David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 15:46:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:46:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > No one suggested that the CSTD was a multi-stakeholder body… the reference > and example was quite evidently, to the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation That's what I was referring to as well. I wouldn't define the CSTD WG-EC as an example of MSism, it may be more MS than the rest of the CSTD, but I wouldn't consider it MS. We may have to agree to disagree. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Mar 21 16:26:28 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:26:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <772044384.33453.1363897588200.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e21> Dear members of the list I add my sincere congratulations to all the recipients of this prestigeous prize, with a particular "bravo" for my friend Louis Pouzin ! Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 21/03/13 08:42 > De : "Baudouin Schombe" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Gideon" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > My congratulations to all the winners of this great prize. > >Baudouin > > 2013/3/19 Gideon > Congratulations to all the remarkable people who have all contributed in their own ways to make this world a better place. > > Gideon Rop. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 21 16:43:11 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:43:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi David, On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen wrote: > The T/A definition from its focal point: > "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical > organizations/people who run it." > > Which is the starting point for doing the counting. ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable candidates would be closer to 30-40. I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it were more than 30-40 from each SG. -- 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 acm.org Thu Mar 21 16:54:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:54:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> Hi, Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. avri On 21 Mar 2013, at 15:46, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> No one suggested that the CSTD was a multi-stakeholder body… the reference >> and example was quite evidently, to the Working Group on Enhanced >> Cooperation > > That's what I was referring to as well. > > I wouldn't define the CSTD WG-EC as an example of MSism, it may be > more MS than the rest of the CSTD, but I wouldn't consider it MS. We > may have to agree to disagree. > > > -- > 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 pouzin at well.com Thu Mar 21 17:08:07 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:08:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Microsoft releases first report on law enforcement requests... and 11 other stories Message-ID: Internet spring rising against cyber gulag ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Access Express Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM Subject: BREAKING: Microsoft releases first report on law enforcement requests... and 11 other stories To: Louis Pouzin ** Access Express | 03/21/13 Microsoft releases report on law enforcement requests For the first time, Microsoft released a transparency report on the first time the number of government law enforcement requests it had received for data on its hundreds of millions of customers, joining the ranks of Google, Twitter and others... via nytimes [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] Staff Picks Week of action opposing CISPA Access has joined a coalition of internet advocacy organizations in a week of action to stop U.S. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which allows companies to share personal data with the government without oversight or safeguards... via accessnow [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Busy Week in US Policy Federal judge strikes down unconstitutional National Security Letters In a momentous win for privacy, a federal judge ruled on a 2011 EFF petition, barring the issuance of NSLs to telecommunications providers. The NSL statute grants the FBI unchecked power to pry into the lives of people within the United States... ------------------------------ 30,000 (and counting) websites rally to oppose CISPA As members of the Internet Defense League, Reddit, Craigslist, and more than 30,000 other websites have expressed opposition to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, a controversial cybersecurity bill recently reintroduced... ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] Fixing "The Worst Law in Technology:" the draconian Computer Fraud and Abuse Act The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act bans “unauthorized access” of computers, but no one really knows what those words mean. Now, civil society organizations and sympathetic legislators are working to fix it... via newyorker [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] Consensus builds to require warrants for email searches in the US Republicans, Democrats, and government officials agreed at a House hearing on Tuesday that police should need a warrant to obtain people's emails and other private online messages from third-party providers... via thehill [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ From the Access Community [image: Article photo] The internet is a surveillance state Cryptographer and security expert Bruce Schneier argues that the internet is a surveillance state where we're being tracked all the time, whether we know it or not. When what we do on the internet is combined with other data about us... via cnn [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] Twitter agrees to block access to blacklisted content in Russia The popular microblogging site Twitter has agreed to block access to accounts or posts that have been blacklisted by Russia's Federal Service for Supervision in Telecommunications, Information Technology and Mass Communications... via themoscowtimes [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] Keeping Intellectual Property out of TAFTA Access has joined a coalition of 35 civil society organizations urging the US and the EU to keep so-called “intellectual property” out of the negotiations for the EU-US Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA)... via accessnow [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] Malaysia uses spyware against own citizens Malaysia is among 25 countries using off-the-shelf spyware to keep tabs on citizens by secretly grabbing images off computer screens, recording video chats, turning on cameras and microphones, and logging keystrokes... via themalaysianinsider [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ [image: Article photo] European Court: Pirate Bay co-founders lose free speech bid The European Court of Human Rights rejected the complaint of the ‘The Pirate Bay’ co-founders against their criminal conviction for facilitating copyright infringement... via article19 [image: +1] [image: Tweet] [image: Share] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ *Access defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world. By combining tech-driven policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access. To reply, please email Access at accessnow.org . **To unsubscribe to the Access Express, go here .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 21 17:56:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:26:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13, McTim wrote: > Hi David, > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen > wrote: >> The T/A definition from its focal point: >> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >> organizations/people who run it." >> >> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. > > ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable > candidates would be closer to 30-40. > > I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. > > If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov > SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it > were more than 30-40 from each SG. > > > -- > 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 18:14:14 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:14:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: +1 Lo propongo *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > In my personal capacity: > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: > >> +1 on both. >> >> Mergers as appropriate. >> >> >> On 3/20/2013 10:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the >> Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, >> please let us know asap. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types >>> of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >>> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >>> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >>> >>> >>> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >>> >>> >>> - Workshop Proposal 1 >>> - Workshop Proposal 2 >>> >>> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >>> the following means:- >>> >>> >>> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>> >>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>> >>> -1 Workshop Proposal >>> >>> >>> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so >>> please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the >>> thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up >>> on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As >>> much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to >>> collect responses. >>> >>> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow >>> us to submit the same on time. >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> *(co-coordinator)* >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Mar 21 20:05:22 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:05:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <395145135-1363910725-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1153212762-@b27.c20.bise6.blackberry> + 1 Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar -----Original Message----- From: José Félix Arias Ynche Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:14:14 To: ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,José Félix Arias Ynche Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] +1 Lo propongo *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > In my personal capacity: > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: > >> +1 on both. >> >> Mergers as appropriate. >> >> >> On 3/20/2013 10:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the >> Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, >> please let us know asap. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types >>> of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >>> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >>> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >>> >>> >>> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >>> >>> >>> - Workshop Proposal 1 >>> - Workshop Proposal 2 >>> >>> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >>> the following means:- >>> >>> >>> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>> >>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>> >>> -1 Workshop Proposal >>> >>> >>> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so >>> please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the >>> thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up >>> on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As >>> much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to >>> collect responses. >>> >>> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow >>> us to submit the same on time. >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> *(co-coordinator)* >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Mar 21 20:17:23 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:17:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] Extension of IGF call until 25 March 2013 Message-ID: <5F330023-4DD3-414D-B98B-34682FA01D38@apnic.net> Please note that the initial workshop deadline has been extended into next week: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Paul. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Mar 21 20:22:16 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:22:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] CLOSES TODAY In-Reply-To: <289881363871754@web3f.yandex.ru> References: <20130321130939.GB2541@tarvainen.info> <289881363871754@web3f.yandex.ru> Message-ID: The extension is now official - at IGF website: *[NEW]** **Preliminary Call for Workshop Proposals* As a result of the MAG recommendations given in its 1 March meeting. The IGF Secretariat is issuing a preliminary call for workshop proposals to which the deadline has been *extended to 25 March 2013*.Read more.. 2013/3/21 Shcherbovich Andrey > Dear Colleagues > > Is the deadline closes today, or tomorrow WS submission is possible? > > Thanks! > > Andrey Shcherbovich > > 21.03.2013, 17:09, "Tapani Tarvainen" : > > I just heard (from a MAG member) that the deadline has been extended > > to Monday (25 March), and that the intent is indeed that these are > > only preliminary proposals, expected to be refined later. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Thu Mar 21 20:33:44 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:33:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed, our dear Louis, great surprise, great news!! izumi 2013/3/21 Baudouin Schombe > Dear Louis, > Better late than never. > I join all friends and colleagues to congratulate you. Any work deserves a > salary. > > in hopes to see us again > Baudouin > > > 2013/3/18 McTim > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >> >> >> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >> >> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 22:02:40 2013 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:02:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <395145135-1363910725-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1153212762-@b27.c20.bise6.blackberry> References: <5149D4FA.4050206@communisphere.com> <395145135-1363910725-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1153212762-@b27.c20.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 - 1 Workshop Proposal 2 Thanks, 2013/3/21 > ** > + 1 > Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar > ------------------------------ > *From: * José Félix Arias Ynche > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:14:14 -0500 > *To: *; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro< > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,José Félix Arias Ynche < > jaryn56 at gmail.com> > *Subject: *Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop > Proposals] > > > +1 Lo propongo > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/3/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> In my personal capacity: >> >> +1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> +1 Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt < >> toml at communisphere.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 on both. >>> >>> Mergers as appropriate. >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/2013 10:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the >>> Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, >>> please let us know asap. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types >>>> of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >>>> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >>>> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >>>> >>>> >>>> - Workshop Proposal 1 >>>> - Workshop Proposal 2 >>>> >>>> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >>>> the following means:- >>>> >>>> >>>> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>>> >>>> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >>>> >>>> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >>>> >>>> -1 Workshop Proposal >>>> >>>> >>>> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so >>>> please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the >>>> thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up >>>> on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As >>>> much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to >>>> collect responses. >>>> >>>> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow >>>> us to submit the same on time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Sala >>>> *(co-coordinator)* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Professor Dr. Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Geografia Depto de Geografia Humana Pesquisador do CNPq http://www.cibergeo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 22:13:24 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:13:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] Extension of IGF call until 25 March 2013 In-Reply-To: <5F330023-4DD3-414D-B98B-34682FA01D38@apnic.net> References: <5F330023-4DD3-414D-B98B-34682FA01D38@apnic.net> Message-ID: Thanks Paul. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Please note that the initial workshop deadline has been extended into next > week: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > > Paul. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 22 00:55:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:25:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:29 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Allen > wrote: >> from the blogpost >> >> “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in >> the entire world … > I think this number is off by several orders of magnitude. > > If the T&A Focal Point decides to limit the pool to just a few hundred > folk, then that is her choice, A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an accomplice in its silence. So, anyway, you do agree that the definition employed by the tech/acad community focal point for what constitutes tech/acad community does limit the choice to a few hundreds. Useful point coming from someone who considers himself as core technical community (though, left out by the definition employed by the focal point) > in that the CSTD is NOT a MS process, > nor is it an Internet Governance process, That you resort to such weak logic only proves the point. parminder > it's a top-down, > inter-governmental process that adds a few seats at the table for > others to talk about EC, what it means, and how it can be further > developed. I've already stated that the T&A folk have over a decade > of experience in EC (doing it before the term came into being). I have > no problem with them limiting their choices. > >> “… this group functions … as peers with a … group representing all of the >> governments of the world, a second group (CS) representing all of the >> citizens of the world, and a third group representing all of the businesses >> of the world …” > The key word here is "peers". How much of a vote do non-governmental > folk get in the CSTD? > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 00:59:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:29:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0bfa01ce2652$b0e0f670$12a2e350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <514BE52C.1080001@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 March 2013 10:54 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim et al you (T/A) can't have it both ways... > why not? > > I see no issue with the T&A FP choosing from a subset of the T&A > community, in that the subset would have a clue about EC and UN > processes. No, the focal point did not define it as a sub set of the tech-acad community, it defined it as 'the' tech-acad community. BTW, since this in a way is the case in point, Michael does know a thing or two about EC and UN processes. And thus your home made theory doesnt justify his exclusion. > > That's exactly what the CS FP did, no? > >> ...one definition for purposes of exclusion and political representation and >> a second for inclusion and broader PR purposes--the results of the first >> definition being so ghastly and repulsive in their significance. >> >> Remember this discussion is about the legitimacy of the current MS >> processes > > I repeat, the CSTD is NOT a MS process. > > , not about the nature of technical and academic >> activities/self-definitions in the real world, at which point I, of course, >> agree with you. >> >> The point of the blogpost, to reiterate, was not to critique MS processes as >> they might be useful in fairly narrow technical spheres, rather it was to >> point out the extreme dangers in attempting to uncritically and >> unreflectively apply these to larger and more "political" processes of >> negotiation/decision making/even consultation. In these, the lack of >> appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and >> accountability > > If you find that "appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of > transparency and > accountability" are lacking, then blame the UN CSTD, not the FPs. > > > , and the use of self-serving self-definitions can be very >> damaging since what is being presented as one thing (e.g. representation of >> a significant grouping such as the technical and academic community (or for >> that matter Civil Society) is in fact something quite >> different--representation by a very small self-covenanted highly >> exclusionary group). > Aren't all FPs choosing from a "very small self-covenanted highly > exclusionary group" of activists ? > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 01:13:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:43:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: <514BE88D.2020902@itforchange.net> On Friday 22 March 2013 03:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. Which is like saying that since the US only has had men presidents, it hardly matters if an official election document says that only men can apply to be the US president. Once again, use of such completely meaningless justifications only proves the point - their is a rather blatant capture at the top of what gets called as 'tech acad community' and those who believe in norms and practives of democracy must protest against it, and do all that they can about it. Because this capture impacts how Internet is evolving and will evolve - it greatly impacts our lives, and the lives of all those 'who cannot be here'. I know I have again committed a big sin. Criticized a powerful and (therefore) loved ally. We are here allowed to criticise only governments, that too basically developing country governments. And if some say well, at times these developing country governments may have a point, then roundly thrash them too. That is the 'resident politics' here. Dont stray from the party line! strict warning!. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13, McTim wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen >> wrote: >>> The T/A definition from its focal point: >>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >>> organizations/people who run it." >>> >>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. >> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable >> candidates would be closer to 30-40. >> >> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. >> >> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov >> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it >> were more than 30-40 from each SG. >> >> >> -- >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 22 01:29:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:29:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when >you have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer >power of the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given >up even the pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil >society is an accomplice in its silence. Either that or you have a view that is in the minority - which might not be quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Fri Mar 22 01:32:26 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:32:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. In-Reply-To: <772044384.33453.1363897588200.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e21> References: <772044384.33453.1363897588200.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e21> Message-ID: <947438666.432.1363930346255.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m14> dear all Congratulations to Louis Pouzin, who is finally recognized for his contributions, and to all his other co-winners of this Award! We are all proud to have you around in these difficult times for Internet freedoms ... best Divina > Message du 21/03/13 21:37 > De : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Baudouin Schombe" , "Gideon" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > >   > Dear members of the list >   > I add my sincere congratulations to all the recipients of this prestigeous prize, with a particular "bravo" for my friend Louis Pouzin !  >   > Jean-Louis Fullsack  > Message du 21/03/13 08:42 > De : "Baudouin Schombe" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Gideon" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Congratulations to recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > My congratulations to all the winners of this great prize. > > Baudouin > > 2013/3/19 Gideon > Congratulations to all the remarkable people who have all contributed in their own ways to make this world a better place. > > Gideon Rop. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 > > > Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen > Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. > > Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc > Andreessen will share the £1m award. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com >          Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 01:54:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:24:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> Message-ID: <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when >> you have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer >> power of the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given >> up even the pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil >> society is an accomplice in its silence. > > Either that or you have a view that is in the minority Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case of the recent tech/acad community related episode... > - which might not be > quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 01:56:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:26:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514BE88D.2020902@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> <514BE88D.2020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <32F3BE2E-6770-4BD3-B451-140F827048DE@hserus.net> That logic is specious, Parminder. This sort of self selection is inevitable because only a subset of each constituency has the interest, knowledge, funding and budget to actively participate in any process at all. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 10:43, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 22 March 2013 03:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. > > Which is like saying that since the US only has had men presidents, it hardly matters if an official election document says that only men can apply to be the US president. Once again, use of such completely meaningless justifications only proves the point - their is a rather blatant capture at the top of what gets called as 'tech acad community' and those who believe in norms and practives of democracy must protest against it, and do all that they can about it. Because this capture impacts how Internet is evolving and will evolve - it greatly impacts our lives, and the lives of all those 'who cannot be here'. > > I know I have again committed a big sin. Criticized a powerful and (therefore) loved ally. We are here allowed to criticise only governments, that too basically developing country governments. And if some say well, at times these developing country governments may have a point, then roundly thrash them too. That is the 'resident politics' here. Dont stray from the party line! strict warning!. > >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13, McTim wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen >>> wrote: >>>> The T/A definition from its focal point: >>>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >>>> organizations/people who run it." >>>> >>>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. >>> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable >>> candidates would be closer to 30-40. >>> >>> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. >>> >>> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov >>> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it >>> were more than 30-40 from each SG. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 02:03:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:03:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0fbf01ce26c3$08788f40$1969adc0$@gmail.com> If what you are saying is correct, then either the activities of the WG are trivial in which case how the members are chosen doesn't matter in any case, or the activities of the WG are meaningful in which case this matters a great deal including representativeness, the lack of accountability, transparency in the selection processes and so on. The more meaningful the WG's activities are the more significant the deficiencies in the selection processes become. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:56 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13, McTim wrote: > Hi David, > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen > wrote: >> The T/A definition from its focal point: >> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >> organizations/people who run it." >> >> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. > > ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable > candidates would be closer to 30-40. > > I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. > > If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov > SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it > were more than 30-40 from each SG. > > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 22 02:11:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:41:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <0fbf01ce26c3$08788f40$1969adc0$@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> <0fbf01ce26c3$08788f40$1969adc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8383A708-DE7A-483C-8D9D-43753CE1D68C@hserus.net> They are meaningful. The question is - 1. How meaningful are they compared to "other" processes and events 2. How do we broaden the audience? You do acknowledge these are quite open processes I know that Diplo does a lot of capacity building in this area - but there's always scope for more organizations to step up and do this. Then the question of funding / time commitment for more people to participate in this space. Else - I've seen you, Parminder, David Allen, Milton Mueller etc around since well before WSIS - and how many new people do we see enter this process? In business and technical community events there's a fairly steady turnover because companies support their employees to travel and participate there, and if someone quits and moves on - while he or she will probably turn up at the next meeting wearing a different name tag, there is quite likely to be an additional person attending the conference - this individual's replacement. [though not infrequently, someone who was already attending from a different company might turn up as the replacement, so the level of turnover isn't as high as it could be, but it does exist] In civil society - at least in this little corner of civil society - there is a much, much lower turnover than that. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 11:33, "michael gurstein" wrote: > If what you are saying is correct, then either the activities of the WG are > trivial in which case how the members are chosen doesn't matter in any case, > or the activities of the WG are meaningful in which case this matters a > great deal including representativeness, the lack of accountability, > transparency in the selection processes and so on. The more meaningful the > WG's activities are the more significant the deficiencies in the selection > processes become. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen > Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My > Adventures in "Stakeholderland" > > Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from > each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13, McTim wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen >> wrote: >>> The T/A definition from its focal point: >>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >>> organizations/people who run it." >>> >>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. >> >> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable >> candidates would be closer to 30-40. >> >> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. >> >> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov >> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it >> were more than 30-40 from each SG. >> >> >> -- >> 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Mar 21 18:04:51 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:04:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> Message-ID: <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. > > It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. > > avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 22 02:55:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:25:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. > > Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. > > > On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >> >> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >> >> avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 22 03:09:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:39:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net> Beware Riaz, you are stepping into another prohibited space of "do not discuss" Do not discuss "US gov role in ICANN" Do not discuss "google, facebook etc" Do not discuss "technical community" Do not discuss "issues of accountability and transparency of MS processes" Do not discuss. "ICANN's processes" Do not discuss "OECD's global Internet policy making activities" Dont you have something to say about a developing country government, UN or ITU.... parminder On Friday 22 March 2013 12:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? > > And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. >> >> Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. >> >> >> On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >>> >>> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >>> >>> 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 Fri Mar 22 03:16:51 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:16:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, might have their own reasons for doing things differently. Adam On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >>> >>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you >>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of >>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the >>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an >>> accomplice in its silence. >> >> >> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority > > > Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a > handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil > society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case > of the recent tech/acad community related episode... > > > > >> - which might not be >> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 22 03:26:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:56:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> <514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Nobody stops you or anyone else from discussing these Do try to back rhetoric and ideology with facts though. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 12:39, parminder wrote: > > Beware Riaz, you are stepping into another prohibited space of "do not discuss" > > Do not discuss "US gov role in ICANN" > > Do not discuss "google, facebook etc" > > Do not discuss "technical community" > > Do not discuss "issues of accountability and transparency of MS processes" > > Do not discuss. "ICANN's processes" > > Do not discuss "OECD's global Internet policy making activities" > > Dont you have something to say about a developing country government, UN or ITU.... > > parminder > > > > On Friday 22 March 2013 12:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? >> >> And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >>> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. >>> >>> Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. >>> >>> >>> On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >>>> >>>> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >>>> >>>> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 03:35:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:35:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: In Defense of Multistakeholder Processes Message-ID: <0fe601ce26cf$e2fefad0$a8fcf070$@gmail.com> Since no seems willing or able to offer a defense of multistakeholder processes beyond empty word games I thought I would need to do it myself. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-proc esses/ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Mar 22 03:39:41 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:39:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. Adam "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, thanks". And mostly because of  the lack of clear principles on methodology.  We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. The time for that discussion is right.  We may not get a full consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be VERY helpful. My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ.  I would love to hear others on this though 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should we discuss a minimum quota? 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners  around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... 5. What will be the better  choice in the cases where a choice must be made between experience and representation, or between experience and opportunity for growth? 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there physically"? 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? 8. ..... many more...:) Nnennna " On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. > (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) > > So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right > process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And > respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not > enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, > might have their own reasons for doing things differently. > > Adam > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >>>> >>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you >>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of >>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the >>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an >>>> accomplice in its silence. >>> >>> >>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority >> >> >> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a >> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil >> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case >> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... >> >> >> >> >>> - which might not be >>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Fri Mar 22 03:43:19 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:43:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com>,<8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear all, inspired by Mike's posting I though I'd add my two cents on the relationship between multistakeholderism and legitimacy. I looked into it for a book I wrote on lessons from Internet Governance law for international law more broadly. I argued that multistakeholderism as an approach is the best approximation of an ideal discourse we have. And an ideal discourse on norms is what we should strive for, because the norms developed in such a discourse, are legitimate. Thus, multistakeholderism is means to ensure democratic legitimacy in post-national constellations. As we don not yet have global democratic governance structures we have to rely on processes to provide legitimacy, and by and large multistakeholder-based decisions are more legitimate than those made in processes involving only selected stakeholders. That is not to say, though, that those decisions can't also be legitimate; but I would say that decisions on global governance issues (say, on Internet Governance) reached in non-multistakeholder processes have to establish other reasons for gaining legitimacy (rational legitimacy, community acceptance, consonance with foundational values ...). They don to profit from an ex ante presumption that they are legitimate. Multistakeholderism is not to be idealized. Ideally, there would be a global democratic governance of the Internet and of all other issues of common concern. This will take time. Crutches are not ideal. But coming from Austria, the country of skiing and thus broken extremeties, I know that crutches can be very useful. You can more along these lines on blog at: http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/does-multistakeholderism-make-decisions.html Kind regards Matthias ________________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 22. März 2013 07:55 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. > > Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. > > > On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >> >> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >> >> avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 04:27:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:27:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, I thought I should perhaps add a different take on the current discussions so far. If we examine the foundation on why representation is needed or the need to ensure that there is extensive stakeholder engagement - it is simply so that there is a sense of "inclusion". In the mind of the UN General Assembly when they invited the CSTD to form a Working Group, it was clear that there was a diverse range of issues that the Group would need to examine and discuss. The manner in which the Chair of the CSTD expressly allocated seats for the Working Group and even in the instructions to the civil society focal point, to select 3 from the developed countries and 3 from developing countries is testament to his desire for this "balance". The questions and issues that surface in light of the composition of things like the MAG, CSTD or other critical forums where multistakeholder engagement can always be improved. Just as almost everything in life is subject to improvement whether it is technology, processes, human development, societies, communities - there is always room for progress and improvement. There has been mention of things like "Accountability" and "Transparency". This no doubt is important as well. Someone else raised the issue of "legitimization" by the people. It would be good to tease out thoughts in this regard. As such, it is important in light of the current debate on this thread to examine some key considerations. Nnenna's suggestions are particularly useful in this regard. Does anyone else have other considerations or principles that would be useful in examining how we can constantly strengthen existing processes? Let's use this opportunity productively for constructive dialogue on teasing out some of the core issues and/or principles that we think should be in place that could help things progress. Warm Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. > > Adam > > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least > for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and > for representation. > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". > Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" > for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles > document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus > here will be VERY helpful. > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For > the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the > way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if > it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can > tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to > disseminate information". > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be > tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and > IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would > love to hear others on this though > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. > Should we discuss a minimum quota? > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma > that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to > have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the > time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger > people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What > orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG issues > can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be > able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be > made between experience and representation, or between experience and > opportunity for growth? > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can > someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation > always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there > physically"? > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme > need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything > that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? > > 8. ..... many more...:) > > Nnennna " > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. > > (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) > > > > So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right > > process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And > > respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not > > enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, > > might have their own reasons for doing things differently. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> > >> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>> > >>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: > >>>> > >>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when > you > >>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer > power of > >>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even > the > >>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is > an > >>>> accomplice in its silence. > >>> > >>> > >>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority > >> > >> > >> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a > >> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what > civil > >> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the > case > >> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> - which might not be > >>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Fri Mar 22 04:30:02 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:30:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: In Defense of Multistakeholder Processes In-Reply-To: <0fe601ce26cf$e2fefad0$a8fcf070$@gmail.com> References: <0fe601ce26cf$e2fefad0$a8fcf070$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brilliant blog Michael on multistakeholder processes. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Since no seems willing or able to offer a defense of multistakeholder > processes beyond empty word games I thought I would need to do it myself. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-proc > esses/ > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 22 04:36:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:06:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. > > Adam > > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least > for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and > for representation. > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". > Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" > for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles > document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus > here will be VERY helpful. > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For > the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the > way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if > it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can > tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to > disseminate information". > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be > tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and > IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would > love to hear others on this though > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. > Should we discuss a minimum quota? > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma > that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to > have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the > time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger > people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What > orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG issues > can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be > able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be > made between experience and representation, or between experience and > opportunity for growth? > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can > someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation > always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there > physically"? > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme > need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything > that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? > > 8. ..... many more...:) > > Nnennna " > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. >> (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) >> >> So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right >> process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And >> respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not >> enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, >> might have their own reasons for doing things differently. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >>>>> >>>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you >>>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of >>>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the >>>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an >>>>> accomplice in its silence. >>>> >>>> >>>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority >>> >>> >>> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a >>> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil >>> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case >>> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> - which might not be >>>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 04:54:09 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:54:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5AA67584-29C3-42AE-AF46-1379D345A0FF@gmail.com> To this we must add the status quoist tendency, the Panglossian this is the best of all possible worlds and we have ears to hold up our glasses, vs the often constrained need for legitimacy... How does ms play this out, forcing some to take a knife to gun fight, in my personal experience Power analysis needs to figure in the configuration becaus i have experienced the wrath and vengeance of some rather nice and prestigious people on this very issue, and if power messes with plurality and diversity in ms processes then reliance on formal equality or participation or inclusion is not sufficient, we need intellectual diversity and pluralism of all estates... ...,... On 22 Mar 2013, at 10:27 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Dear All, > > I thought I should perhaps add a different take on the current discussions so far. If we examine the foundation on why representation is needed or the need to ensure that there is extensive stakeholder engagement - it is simply so that there is a sense of "inclusion". In the mind of the UN General Assembly when they invited the CSTD to form a Working Group, it was clear that there was a diverse range of issues that the Group would need to examine and discuss. The manner in which the Chair of the CSTD expressly allocated seats for the Working Group and even in the instructions to the civil society focal point, to select 3 from the developed countries and 3 from developing countries is testament to his desire for this "balance". > > The questions and issues that surface in light of the composition of things like the MAG, CSTD or other critical forums where multistakeholder engagement can always be improved. Just as almost everything in life is subject to improvement whether it is technology, processes, human development, societies, communities - there is always room for progress and improvement. > > There has been mention of things like "Accountability" and "Transparency". This no doubt is important as well. > > Someone else raised the issue of "legitimization" by the people. It would be good to tease out thoughts in this regard. > > As such, it is important in light of the current debate on this thread to examine some key considerations. Nnenna's suggestions are particularly useful in this regard. Does anyone else have other considerations or principles that would be useful in examining how we can constantly strengthen existing processes? > > Let's use this opportunity productively for constructive dialogue on teasing out some of the core issues and/or principles that we think should be in place that could help things progress. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. >> >> Adam >> >> >> "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a >> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >> >> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >> methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least >> for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and >> for representation. >> >> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >> consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". >> Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >> >> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" >> for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >> document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus >> here will be VERY helpful. >> >> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >> >> 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For >> the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the >> way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if >> it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can >> tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to >> disseminate information". >> >> 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >> tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and >> IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would >> love to hear others on this though >> >> 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >> Should we discuss a minimum quota? >> >> 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >> that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to >> have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the >> time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger >> people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What >> orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG issues >> can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be >> able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... >> >> 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be >> made between experience and representation, or between experience and >> opportunity for growth? >> >> 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >> issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can >> someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation >> always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there >> physically"? >> >> 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme >> need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything >> that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >> >> 8. ..... many more...:) >> >> Nnennna " >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. >> > (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) >> > >> > So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right >> > process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And >> > respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not >> > enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, >> > might have their own reasons for doing things differently. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> >> >>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >> >>>> >> >>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you >> >>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of >> >>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the >> >>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an >> >>>> accomplice in its silence. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority >> >> >> >> >> >> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a >> >> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil >> >> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case >> >> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - which might not be >> >>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 04:55:55 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:55:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <856BBB38-D8F6-4EAD-AF2A-F6884081CA51@gmail.com> Problem with your argument, why does the toast always fall butter side down, retaining us hegemony ultimately on Cir? ...,... On 22 Mar 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > Dear all, > > inspired by Mike's posting I though I'd add my two cents on the relationship between multistakeholderism and legitimacy. I looked into it for a book I wrote on lessons from Internet Governance law for international law more broadly. > > I argued that multistakeholderism as an approach is the best approximation of an ideal discourse we have. And an ideal discourse on norms is what we should strive for, because the norms developed in such a discourse, are legitimate. Thus, multistakeholderism is means to ensure democratic legitimacy in post-national constellations. As we don not yet have global democratic governance structures we have to rely on processes to provide legitimacy, and by and large multistakeholder-based decisions are more legitimate than those made in processes involving only selected stakeholders. That is not to say, though, that those decisions can't also be legitimate; but I would say that decisions on global governance issues (say, on Internet Governance) reached in non-multistakeholder processes have to establish other reasons for gaining legitimacy (rational legitimacy, community acceptance, consonance with foundational values ...). > > They don to profit from an ex ante presumption that they are legitimate. > > Multistakeholderism is not to be idealized. Ideally, there would be a global democratic governance of the Internet and of all other issues of common concern. This will take time. > > Crutches are not ideal. But coming from Austria, the country of skiing and thus broken extremeties, I know that crutches can be very useful. > > You can more along these lines on blog at: http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/does-multistakeholderism-make-decisions.html > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > > ________________________________________ > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > Gesendet: Freitag, 22. März 2013 07:55 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" > > What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? > > And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. >> >> Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. >> >> >> On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >>> >>> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >>> >>> avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 22 05:28:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:58:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] RESULTS [Call for Consensus on Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514C244C.1080708@itforchange.net> Thanks all Good we have got two good workshop proposals from IGC to work on. (Although not sure why we could nt agree on the propsoed on net neutrality - given that it was proposed by IGC as a key policy question for a man session for the MAG meeting in Paris.) Anyway, can the co-coordinators instruct us what is the process to go forward from here. If possible, I/ ITfC would like to participate in organising both the workshops. Are we going to do further work here on the IGC or in a smaller group. Thanks parminder On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of > you for participating. > > Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, > two Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued > accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. > > Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where > there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear *_is > very likely to change_* and face improvements. We also note the > comments in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all > feedback in the near future. > > We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are > noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the > Workshop Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we > received the following response:- > * > 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. > * > * Workshop Proposal 1* > 26 people agreed with the proposal > 1 person disagreed with the proposal > > *Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* > > *Workshop Proposal 2* > 21 people agreed with the proposal > 3 people disagreed with the proposal > 3 people abstained from commenting > * > Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUSIN FAVOUR* > > For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: > > > > > > Subscribers of IGC > > > > Workshop Proposal 1 > > > > Workshop Proposal 2 > > 1. > > > > McTim > > > > -1 > > > > +1 > > 2. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 3. > > > > Sarah Kiden > > > > +1 > > > > > 4. > > > > Ginger Paque > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 5. > > > > Avri Doria > > > > +1 > > > > -1 > > 6. > > > > Nnenna > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 7. > > > > Michael Gurstein > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 8. > > > > Jose Felix Arias Ynche > > > > +1 > > > > > 9. > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 10. > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 11. > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 12. > > > > Norbert Bollow > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 13. > > > > Anja Kovacs > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 14. > > > > William Drake > > > > +1 > > > > -1 > > 15. > > > > Adam Peake > > > > +1 > > > > -1 > > 16. > > > > Oksana Prykhodko > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 17. > > > > Parminder > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 18. > > > > Walid Al Saqaf > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 19. > > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 20. > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 21. > > > > Shala Mistry > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 22. > > > > Guru > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 23. > > > > Izumi Aizu > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 24. > > > > Boudouin Schombe > > > > +1 > > > > > 25. > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 26. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > 27. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > +1 > > > > +1 > > > > > We thank everyone for your input. > > Yours sincerely, > > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > */Coordinators/* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 22 05:55:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:55:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> How should these questions be taken forward? With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already decided on. I think that the questions are certainly important enough to justify that. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: > > > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. > > > > Adam > > > > > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a > > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > > methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least > > for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and > > for representation. > > > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full > > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal > > points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter > > as a group. > > > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" > > for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 > > principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of > > consensus here will be VERY helpful. > > > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > > > 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For > > the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the > > way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say > > if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I > > can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined > > decision to disseminate information". > > > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be > > tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet > > and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I > > would love to hear others on this though > > > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. > > Should we discuss a minimum quota? > > > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma > > that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going > > to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the > > time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger > > people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What > > orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG > > issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after > > us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for > > "qualified" people... > > > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must > > be made between experience and representation, or between > > experience and opportunity for growth? > > > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related > > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When > > can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will > > representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and > > be there physically"? > > > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an > > extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost > > anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached > > to it? > > > > 8. ..... many more...:) > > > > Nnennna " -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 06:33:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:03:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: How about this - "Increasing the civil society base in multistakeholder IG processes" - take Nnenna's questions and throw them in as the description. They should make all of us think long and hard - and I can confidently say that these are the exact same questions the technical community (IETF etc) has asked itself several times in the past. ISOC has an active fellowship program for the IETF - which is curated to ensure that deserving candidates are given these, and more importantly, also that they contribute back to the community. They also participate actively in, and sponsor, the fellowship programs to several regional technical / network operations events such as APRICOT (www.apricot.net) in the asiapac, where I have been on the fellowship committee for the past several years. There, we get to weed out something like a hundred or more fellowship applications, including a few from apricot farmers in Turkey on occasion, before we can identify eight to ten fellows. Where can we find something similar for civil society - and how do we tailor a fellowship program that distinguishes between genuine ability and a broad knowledge of enough buzzwords to make up a convincing fellowship application? [note - communication skills are essential, in whatever language the candiate may choose to express themselves in] --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 15:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > How should these questions be taken forward? > > With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put > together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the > much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already > decided on. > > I think that the questions are certainly important enough to > justify that. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a >>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >>> >>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >>> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >>> methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least >>> for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and >>> for representation. >>> >>> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >>> consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal >>> points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter >>> as a group. >>> >>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" >>> for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 >>> principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of >>> consensus here will be VERY helpful. >>> >>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >>> >>> 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For >>> the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the >>> way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say >>> if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I >>> can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined >>> decision to disseminate information". >>> >>> 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >>> tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet >>> and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I >>> would love to hear others on this though >>> >>> 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >>> Should we discuss a minimum quota? >>> >>> 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >>> that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going >>> to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the >>> time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger >>> people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What >>> orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG >>> issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after >>> us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >>> "qualified" people... >>> >>> 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must >>> be made between experience and representation, or between >>> experience and opportunity for growth? >>> >>> 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >>> issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When >>> can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will >>> representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and >>> be there physically"? >>> >>> 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an >>> extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost >>> anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached >>> to it? >>> >>> 8. ..... many more...:) >>> >>> Nnennna " > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Mar 22 06:36:10 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:36:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Would this be consistent with the IGC position that there should be fewer workshops? And how does IGC and all the usual faces packing the field with proposals help with diversity in MS processes? Adam On Friday, March 22, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > How should these questions be taken forward? > > With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put > together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the > much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already > decided on. > > I think that the questions are certainly important enough to > justify that. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > > > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a > > > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > > > > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > > > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > > > methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least > > > for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and > > > for representation. > > > > > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full > > > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal > > > points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter > > > as a group. > > > > > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" > > > for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 > > > principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of > > > consensus here will be VERY helpful. > > > > > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > > > > > 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For > > > the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the > > > way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say > > > if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I > > > can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined > > > decision to disseminate information". > > > > > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be > > > tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet > > > and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I > > > would love to hear others on this though > > > > > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. > > > Should we discuss a minimum quota? > > > > > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma > > > that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going > > > to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the > > > time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger > > > people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What > > > orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG > > > issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after > > > us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for > > > "qualified" people... > > > > > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must > > > be made between experience and representation, or between > > > experience and opportunity for growth? > > > > > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related > > > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When > > > can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will > > > representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and > > > be there physically"? > > > > > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an > > > extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost > > > anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached > > > to it? > > > > > > 8. ..... many more...:) > > > > > > Nnennna " > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 06:38:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:08:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> Does this HAVE to be a workshop proposal? In nanog there are "lightning talks" .. impromptu gatherings where people can stand up, speak without slides and get feedback, I am sure if the concept doesn't catch on in the IGF there's always scope for several people to have a quiet drink in one of the several bars bali has, and spend some time discussing this. --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 16:06, Adam Peake wrote: > Would this be consistent with the IGC position that there should be fewer workshops? And how does IGC and all the usual faces packing the field with proposals help with diversity in MS processes? > > Adam > > > On Friday, March 22, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> How should these questions be taken forward? >> >> With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put >> together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the >> much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already >> decided on. >> >> I think that the questions are certainly important enough to >> justify that. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> > Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. >> > >> > --srs (iPad) >> > >> > On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: >> > >> > > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. >> > > >> > > Adam >> > > >> > > >> > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a >> > > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >> > > >> > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >> > > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >> > > methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least >> > > for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and >> > > for representation. >> > > >> > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >> > > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal >> > > points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter >> > > as a group. >> > > >> > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" >> > > for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 >> > > principles document, that has been discussed and has met a level of >> > > consensus here will be VERY helpful. >> > > >> > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >> > > >> > > 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For >> > > the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the >> > > way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say >> > > if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I >> > > can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined >> > > decision to disseminate information". >> > > >> > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >> > > tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet >> > > and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I >> > > would love to hear others on this though >> > > >> > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >> > > Should we discuss a minimum quota? >> > > >> > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >> > > that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going >> > > to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the >> > > time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger >> > > people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What >> > > orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG >> > > issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after >> > > us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >> > > "qualified" people... >> > > >> > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must >> > > be made between experience and representation, or between >> > > experience and opportunity for growth? >> > > >> > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >> > > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When >> > > can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will >> > > representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and >> > > be there physically"? >> > > >> > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an >> > > extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost >> > > anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached >> > > to it? >> > > >> > > 8. ..... many more...:) >> > > >> > > Nnennna " > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 22 07:00:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:00:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130322120005.7ffc4c8f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] In any case, if the idea is to go forward, in whatever way, it will need a volunteer to move it forward. BTW "there should be fewer workshops" has *not* been adopted as an IGC consensus position. The thought was included in the recent IGC statement, but only with a "Some of us suggest:" qualifier, because it did not get consensus otherwise. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Does this HAVE to be a workshop proposal? In nanog there are > "lightning talks" .. impromptu gatherings where people can stand up, > speak without slides and get feedback, I am sure if the concept > doesn't catch on in the IGF there's always scope for several people > to have a quiet drink in one of the several bars bali has, and spend > some time discussing this. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 16:06, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Would this be consistent with the IGC position that there should be > > fewer workshops? And how does IGC and all the usual faces packing > > the field with proposals help with diversity in MS processes? > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Friday, March 22, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> How should these questions be taken forward? > >> > >> With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put > >> together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the > >> much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already > >> decided on. > >> > >> I think that the questions are certainly important enough to > >> justify that. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> > Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. > >> > > >> > --srs (iPad) > >> > > >> > On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > > >> > > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few > >> > > days ago. > >> > > > >> > > Adam > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off > >> > > in a not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be > >> > > killed off now. > >> > > > >> > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, > >> > > but no, thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear > >> > > principles on methodology. We have been in this "process" for > >> > > 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted > >> > > principles for selection and for representation. > >> > > > >> > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full > >> > > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal > >> > > points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a > >> > > Charter as a group. > >> > > > >> > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative > >> > > "positions" for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, > >> > > 4, or 5 principles document, that has been discussed and has > >> > > met a level of consensus here will be VERY helpful. > >> > > > >> > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > >> > > > >> > > 1. Informing on and disseminating > >> > > opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, I actually had to > >> > > tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and the > >> > > APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I > >> > > am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell > >> > > you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision > >> > > to disseminate information". > >> > > > >> > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One > >> > > may be tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case > >> > > of Internet and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may > >> > > want to differ. I would love to hear others on this though > >> > > > >> > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in > >> > > representations. Should we discuss a minimum quota? > >> > > > >> > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical > >> > > dilemma that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. > >> > > Are we going to have the same faces (albeit with a greater > >> > > tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike the balance > >> > > between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths > >> > > while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in > >> > > process, issues and manners around IG issues can we put in > >> > > place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be able to > >> > > follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... > >> > > > >> > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice > >> > > must be made between experience and representation, or between > >> > > experience and opportunity for growth? > >> > > > >> > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related > >> > > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? > >> > > When can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will > >> > > representation always be synonymous with "people who can > >> > > travel and be there physically"? > >> > > > >> > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an > >> > > extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in > >> > > almost anything that has "selection, representation and > >> > > travel" attached to it? > >> > > > >> > > 8. ..... many more...:) > >> > > > >> > > Nnennna " > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 Fri Mar 22 07:09:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:09:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130322120906.51144ed0@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > As such, it is important in light of the current debate on this > thread to examine some key considerations. Nnenna's suggestions are > particularly useful in this regard. Does anyone else have other > considerations or principles that would be useful in examining how we > can constantly strengthen existing processes? Baudouin's point on the systemic perspective is very important in this regard. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 07:30:49 2013 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:30:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sala, the greatest congress "stakeholders" was the Congress of Vienna everyone was there and his wayward brother as well as all the illegitimate sons of kings and knaves the outcome? over a hundred "sovereigns" were despoiled, as te Congress ratified in part Napoleon's sweep of micro-states and the Congress did the ret include to exclude was the motto a reverence, so as better to kick them out aldo On 22 March 2013 09:27, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I thought I should perhaps add a different take on the current discussions > so far. If we examine the foundation on why representation is needed or the > need to ensure that there is extensive stakeholder engagement - it is > simply so that there is a sense of "inclusion". In the mind of the UN > General Assembly when they invited the CSTD to form a Working Group, it was > clear that there was a diverse range of issues that the Group would need to > examine and discuss. The manner in which the Chair of the CSTD expressly > allocated seats for the Working Group and even in the instructions to the > civil society focal point, to select 3 from the developed countries and 3 > from developing countries is testament to his desire for this "balance". > > The questions and issues that surface in light of the composition of > things like the MAG, CSTD or other critical forums where multistakeholder > engagement can always be improved. Just as almost everything in life is > subject to improvement whether it is technology, processes, human > development, societies, communities - there is always room for progress and > improvement. > > There has been mention of things like "Accountability" and "Transparency". > This no doubt is important as well. > > Someone else raised the issue of "legitimization" by the people. It would > be good to tease out thoughts in this regard. > > As such, it is important in light of the current debate on this thread to > examine some key considerations. Nnenna's suggestions are particularly > useful in this regard. Does anyone else have other considerations or > principles that would be useful in examining how we can constantly > strengthen existing processes? > > Let's use this opportunity productively for constructive dialogue on > teasing out some of the core issues and/or principles that we think should > be in place that could help things progress. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few days ago. >> >> Adam >> >> >> "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a >> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >> >> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >> methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least >> for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and >> for representation. >> >> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >> consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". >> Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >> >> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" >> for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >> document, that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus >> here will be VERY helpful. >> >> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >> >> 1. Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For >> the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the >> way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if >> it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can >> tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to >> disseminate information". >> >> 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >> tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and >> IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would >> love to hear others on this though >> >> 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >> Should we discuss a minimum quota? >> >> 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >> that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to >> have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the >> time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger >> people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What >> orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG issues >> can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be >> able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... >> >> 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be >> made between experience and representation, or between experience and >> opportunity for growth? >> >> 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >> issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can >> someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation >> always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there >> physically"? >> >> 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme >> need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything >> that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >> >> 8. ..... many more...:) >> >> Nnennna " >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. >> > (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) >> > >> > So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right >> > process. Starting with what's right for civil society. And >> > respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not >> > enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, >> > might have their own reasons for doing things differently. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> >> >>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >> >>>> >> >>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, >> when you >> >>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer >> power of >> >>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even >> the >> >>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is >> an >> >>>> accomplice in its silence. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority >> >> >> >> >> >> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a >> >> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what >> civil >> >> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in >> the case >> >> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - which might not be >> >>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 09:17:38 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:17:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Workshop Proposal 1 +1 Workshop Proposal 2 On Mar 20, 2013 10:56 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the > Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, > please let us know asap. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of >> Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have >> compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of >> reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >> There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> - Workshop Proposal 1 >> - Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through >> the following means:- >> >> >> *If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> + 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> *If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say:* >> >> -1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >> You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please >> make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics >> of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous >> threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as >> possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect >> responses. >> >> We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us >> to submit the same on time. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> *(co-coordinator)* >> > > > > -- > 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Mar 22 09:39:14 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:39:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130322143914.46d160d1@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 While there's nothing wrong with continuing to express support or opposition, that particular rough consensus decision making process has ended yesterday, with both proposals passing. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Fri Mar 22 09:48:01 2013 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:48:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: <20130322143914.46d160d1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130322143914.46d160d1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet /CTA FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819* *"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano* 2013/3/22 Norbert Bollow > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > > > +1 Workshop Proposal 1 > > +1 Workshop Proposal 2 > > While there's nothing wrong with continuing to express support > or opposition, that particular rough consensus decision making > process has ended yesterday, with both proposals passing. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 10:41:04 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:41:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <0c0a01ce2656$1b6219e0$52264da0$@gmail.com> <0c7601ce265f$862b5b20$92821160$@gmail.com> <5B326A9F-6C6C-4443-9175-47423A4FD583@acm.org> <514B8403.8010606@gmail.com> <8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net> <514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514C6D80.4080000@gmail.com> Thanks Parminder As I said, as one idiot savant, it is good to have the cat amongst the pigeons. On this list it seems if one is less than robust in articulation, one can get papered over. That we see the same themes played over and over again is remarkable for its consistency. The IGF is a non-binding forum and the treatment CIR has received is unacceptable. ANY political process that seeks to address the legitimacy issue must face this squarely, and if it cannot, well then it is merely tendentious. Being guided by incrementalist approaches that seek to entertain ideas and/or understand that is perfectly rational, rationality being my ticket for entry into civil society. And there is space for all estates. But I refuse to start off from, or be required to, the presumption that markets are best (or if it ain't broke don't fix it, or other single rooter fantasms, take your pick). It depends and I start off from the scepticism of a priori assumptions. Has IETF delivered a remarkable technical machinery for the world, you betcha. That has merit, and I would be loathed to have interference in it by way of higher level governance changes that affect its efficacy. However, it is not a blanket position. If the technical and regulatory share a set in the venn, then it simply depends again. Or if a firm makes a good policy intervention, that is fine, one can entertain it. But I will not start from the presumption that it accords with public interest, without excluding the possibility that it might well (but that raises other issues, like dependency of alliances etc). Nick's computer industry group is a good case in point around TRIPs and LDCs. There are shared values, but I am not going to give them a veto over it nor would they want that, for other reasons. One can even disagree with MSM and challenge Gurstein but still go along with him tactically as a fellow traveller. Values convergence allows for far more flexibility. I certainly do not want to be a Luddite on governance innovations. But that cuts both ways too irt DOC/ICANN. But we have a semblance of dialogue on this list, whose contours you have highlighted. And civil society is messy, but I do draw the line where rationality fails, as if even legal systems did not have bill of rights that acts as a countermajoritarian device in a majoritarian democracy. My trouble, and see by the responses you get, is that there is a status quoist /cabal/ that operates in various guises that seeks domination through, in Malcolm X's words, any means necessary. I would not mind it if were not so disingenuous, and simultaneously transparent. This does not go to motive necessarily, people can be sincere/naive/innocent. That does not factor, simply because legitimacy operates at a higher level of abstraction. And specific differences are merely symptomatic of this higher level difference. Or to talk to you as a neocolonised subject, it is just like the wild west, with cowboys vs indians, slaves etc. And the wild west was opened up because of colonist pressures on New England who were becoming upstarts. The characterisation of the colonial power then was, the British were liberal, philanthropic and monopolists. We see market orientation, GAC, training courses, and DOC contractual control respectively. It did not matter how many American British monarchists there were, nor the number of house slaves who sang their masters' praises. Legitimacy issues like freedom were not discounted by collaboration as ideas. So they through a tea party in Boston. One can waste ones candour in such crass discussions of course, I find these tedious as certainly others do too. I would be happy to admit the very real possibility that a slave makes a bad master. What I have difficulty in countenancing is a modern dialogue on these values/issues. We can even forgive the earlier colonists for the genocidal Great Exploration/Expansion/Discovery ages, as that was the tribal morality at the time in much of the world and there were few articulate natives to make a case. The modern set however has no such excuse. The dialogue on this list is pretty much was Hoffman called it, and that is just normal. Perhaps more can be learned from N S engagements in other UN fora, as it is oft much better - despite as stark differences on policies. And more personally, don't feel dejected about the responses you get. Its up to you and yours to keep Swartz's and Elsberg's memory alive, even if it means you have to deprive some in the North of their monopoly of definition /of the terms/ of the terms of the engagement. It you who is hunting, so even if you can just yelp, keep the quarry running, working for its power. Things change, endogenously and exogenously, and exercised power fragments... On 2013/03/22 09:09 AM, parminder wrote: > > Beware Riaz, you are stepping into another prohibited space of "do not > discuss" > > Do not discuss "US gov role in ICANN" > > Do not discuss "google, facebook etc" > > Do not discuss "technical community" > > Do not discuss "issues of accountability and transparency of MS > processes" > > Do not discuss. "ICANN's processes" > > Do not discuss "OECD's global Internet policy making activities" > > Dont you have something to say about a developing country government, > UN or ITU.... > > parminder > > > > On Friday 22 March 2013 12:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times? >> >> And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >>> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me. >>> >>> Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc. >>> >>> >>> On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be. >>>> >>>> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony. >>>> >>>> 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 11:06:15 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:06:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Begins Regulating BitCoin, Will Apply "Money Laundering" Rules To Virtual Transactions | Zero Hedge Message-ID: <514C7367.1090706@gmail.com> At least in US it is regulation plain and simple, in EU it is regulation while asking Cyprus to dip into savers bank accounts... of course the US will regulate BitCoin but let Wall Street make derivatives that Buffet called Weapons of Mass Destruction... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-21/us-begins-regulating-bitcoin-will-consider-virtual-transactions-money-laundering -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 11:16:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:46:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Begins Regulating BitCoin, Will Apply "Money Laundering" Rules To Virtual Transactions | Zero Hedge In-Reply-To: <514C7367.1090706@gmail.com> References: <514C7367.1090706@gmail.com> Message-ID: If and only if bitcoins are exchanged for real USD. Do you actually see anything wrong in that? If so what, and why? --srs (iPad) On 22-Mar-2013, at 20:36, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > At least in US it is regulation plain and simple, in EU it is regulation while asking Cyprus to dip into savers bank accounts... of course the US will regulate BitCoin but let Wall Street make derivatives that Buffet called Weapons of Mass Destruction... > > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-21/us-begins-regulating-bitcoin-will-consider-virtual-transactions-money-laundering > > ____________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 22 11:43:02 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:43:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: <20130322120005.7ffc4c8f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> <20130322120005.7ffc4c8f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > In any case, if the idea is to go forward, in whatever way, it will > need a volunteer to move it forward. > > BTW "there should be fewer workshops" has *not* been adopted as an > IGC consensus position. The thought was included in the recent IGC > statement, but only with a "Some of us suggest:" qualifier, because > it did not get consensus otherwise. > OK, could you check. I don't remember anyone saying more workshops better, perhaps one saying it wasn't an issue, and quite a number saying less would be good (one way or another saying a drop in numbers would be good). it does matter. Seems one of the reasons for this preliminary proposal process is to try and reduce the number of workshops, to reduce duplicates on the same topic, and to make the barrier a bit higher for frequent contributors. If there really isn't consensus that the number of workshops should be reduced this year (there were 11 parallel tracks in Baku) then CS MAG members might like to know that's the prevailing view. Thanks, Adam > Greetings, > Norbert > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Does this HAVE to be a workshop proposal? In nanog there are >> "lightning talks" .. impromptu gatherings where people can stand up, >> speak without slides and get feedback, I am sure if the concept >> doesn't catch on in the IGF there's always scope for several people >> to have a quiet drink in one of the several bars bali has, and spend >> some time discussing this. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 16:06, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Would this be consistent with the IGC position that there should be >> > fewer workshops? And how does IGC and all the usual faces packing >> > the field with proposals help with diversity in MS processes? >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > On Friday, March 22, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> How should these questions be taken forward? >> >> >> >> With the deadline extension, there would be time to quickly put >> >> together a workshop proposal on these matters in addition to the >> >> much more narrowly scoped workshop proposal that we have already >> >> decided on. >> >> >> >> I think that the questions are certainly important enough to >> >> justify that. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> >> >> > Nnenna has asked ALL the right questions. >> >> > >> >> > --srs (iPad) >> >> > >> >> > On 22-Mar-2013, at 13:09, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > And perhaps as a starting point, Nnenna's email from a few >> >> > > days ago. >> >> > > >> >> > > Adam >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > "The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off >> >> > > in a not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be >> >> > > killed off now. >> >> > > >> >> > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, >> >> > > but no, thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear >> >> > > principles on methodology. We have been in this "process" for >> >> > > 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted >> >> > > principles for selection and for representation. >> >> > > >> >> > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >> >> > > consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal >> >> > > points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a >> >> > > Charter as a group. >> >> > > >> >> > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative >> >> > > "positions" for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, >> >> > > 4, or 5 principles document, that has been discussed and has >> >> > > met a level of consensus here will be VERY helpful. >> >> > > >> >> > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1. Informing on and disseminating >> >> > > opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, I actually had to >> >> > > tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and the >> >> > > APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I >> >> > > am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell >> >> > > you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision >> >> > > to disseminate information". >> >> > > >> >> > > 2. Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One >> >> > > may be tempted to follow the UN categories... but in the case >> >> > > of Internet and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may >> >> > > want to differ. I would love to hear others on this though >> >> > > >> >> > > 3. Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in >> >> > > representations. Should we discuss a minimum quota? >> >> > > >> >> > > 4. Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical >> >> > > dilemma that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. >> >> > > Are we going to have the same faces (albeit with a greater >> >> > > tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike the balance >> >> > > between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths >> >> > > while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in >> >> > > process, issues and manners around IG issues can we put in >> >> > > place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be able to >> >> > > follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people... >> >> > > >> >> > > 5. What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice >> >> > > must be made between experience and representation, or between >> >> > > experience and opportunity for growth? >> >> > > >> >> > > 6. Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >> >> > > issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? >> >> > > When can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will >> >> > > representation always be synonymous with "people who can >> >> > > travel and be there physically"? >> >> > > >> >> > > 7. How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an >> >> > > extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in >> >> > > almost anything that has "selection, representation and >> >> > > travel" attached to it? >> >> > > >> >> > > 8. ..... many more...:) >> >> > > >> >> > > Nnennna " >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your 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 Fri Mar 22 12:28:00 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:28:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> <20130322120005.7ffc4c8f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0355943D-DC63-4757-89D5-BEE97E4079C1@acm.org> On 22 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Adam Peake wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> In any case, if the idea is to go forward, in whatever way, it will >> need a volunteer to move it forward. >> >> BTW "there should be fewer workshops" has *not* been adopted as an >> IGC consensus position. The thought was included in the recent IGC >> statement, but only with a "Some of us suggest:" qualifier, because >> it did not get consensus otherwise. >> > > > OK, could you check. I don't remember anyone saying more workshops > better, perhaps one saying it wasn't an issue, and quite a number > saying less would be good (one way or another saying a drop in numbers > would be good). I do. I like there being a lot of diversity in the workshop offerings. I think a better job should be done of threading them so that like does not compete with like in the same time slot. But I do beleive that in any of the themes one should be able to attend something in that theme in most every time slot if that is ones pleasure or need. I also have no problem with workshops that have too few attendees. Both on the IGF were I participated in a workshop with fewer than 10 people came, and at recent ILGA world conference where only 3 people came to a session i was giving, we had a great session. And since the IGF allows us to capture the sound and transcript of every workshop no matter how sparsely attended, they are all available to all of us and to all stakeholders, no matter how few people attend initially. I think that we only bring this group together once a year on a global level and we should allow for all the conversations possible, even if it is only among a handful of people who would not share otherwise on this topic. > > it does matter. Seems one of the reasons for this preliminary > proposal process is to try and reduce the number of workshops, to > reduce duplicates on the same topic, and to make the barrier a bit > higher for frequent contributors. If there really isn't consensus > that the number of workshops should be reduced this year (there were > 11 parallel tracks in Baku) then CS MAG members might like to know > that's the prevailing view. As I said I have a dissenting view. I think the more MAG pares things down, the more they reduce the information that will be shared and the more they curtail the opportunities for capacity building. I also think it is a waste of their time, they have more important issues to work on that the endless haggle over workshops. I do agree with those who say we should have more free time, although I think free time is largely found by skipping sessions for other activities from time to time. I also think that there should be decent free time intervals between sessions to allow chat time at the end of a workshop. Unless food is being offered by the host, I would prefer a schedule that ran through the day of (90 minute sessions followed by 30 minute breaks from 8am tile 8pm with not specific feeding time. We travel far for the opportunity to meet, so lets meet as much as possible while at the meeting. People don't need to go to all meetings, but all meetings need to be held. Sell sandwiches the hungry can bring to the sessions or sit in a nice environment and char over. Wasting a workshop time slot with lunch makes no sense to me - unless of course it is a cultural affair where the hosts treats the assembled. avri ILGA - International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association: a worldwide federation campaigning for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex rights, since 1978. MAG - Multistakeholder Advisory Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Mar 22 14:39:16 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:09:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] A workshop on Nnenna's questions? (was Re: Blogpost:...) In-Reply-To: <0355943D-DC63-4757-89D5-BEE97E4079C1@acm.org> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <20130322105525.62b42032@quill.bollow.ch> <0956AED7-FB09-49C7-9D19-A920A93F431F@hserus.net> <20130322120005.7ffc4c8f@quill.bollow.ch> <0355943D-DC63-4757-89D5-BEE97E4079C1@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I agree with Avri that we should let many flowers bloom. However, at the same time I am not convinced that having a workshop on this topic at the IGF is the best way forward. For one thing, even if the MAG might be willing to let go of the requirement that each workshop has at least three stakeholder groups, I think we should be careful not to slowly do away with what is perhaps the most valuable characteristic of the IGF, the dialogue across stakeholder groups, by focusing our efforts at the IGF on having discussions that are really internal to civil society. I am also not sure that we can actually afford to wait until October to have this conversation among ourselves. Questions around legitimacy, representation, accountability, transparency crop up again and again, not only at the global level but at national levels as well, and have done so for years. Why don't we start trying to tackle these questions in a more systematic manner now? So here is what I would like to suggest. In an attempt to start moving forward on these issues, why don't we start discussing one question a week on a separate email thread, say from early April onwards? The conversation could then be summarised by one person in the following week, highlighting points of agreement, but also of convergence. If people find this useful, the document in question could each time be put to a consensus call, to make sure that all those involved do indeed feel it is representative of the discussion. When all questions have been covered, the summaries could all be put together into one outcome document, that can highlight recommendations and principles wherever agreement has been reached. As people's opinions might change, or crystalise, as the discussions evolve, the document as a whole probably should also be put up for discussion for a week, and be amended according to the outcome of that conversation. At the IGF itself, we could then have a half day IGF pre-event, where we discuss the document and its implications with civil society beyond the IGC, as well as think through how and where our conversations on this topic can usefully feed into the many workshops on multistakeholderism that will undoubtedly take place at the IGF this year. The questions we would address is first of all the set already shared by Nnenna, but also the questions that Michael posed in an earlier email - as the latter were buried somewhere in a long thread, I have pasted them again below this message. We made want to add additional questions as well. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of this proposal. If people think this is a good idea, I would be happy to put in the work to put this on the rails. If enough people are interested, perhaps we could even put into place a small group to take charge of this mini-project. Best regards, Anja *Michael's questions:* 1. what is the definition of a "stakeholder" (stakeholder group?--is there a difference?) 2. who gets to define/ratify the definitions/inclusionary/exclusionary covenants for individual stakeholders/SG's 3. is there an appeal/review process re: these covenants 4. what is the process of evolution/change of these stakeholder covenants and how is the process governed/managed and by whom 5. how are internal governance process within stakeholder groups determined/ratified and how is this process itself governed and by whom 6. what is the relationship between individual stakeholder groups and associated organizational (focal) structures--is this a necessary or contingent relationship and if contingent what are the factors governing such contingencies 7. what is the relationship between SG's, Focal organizations and non-Focal SG members--and how is this governed and by whom 8. how is the significant disparity in available resources for internal operations/management and external participation/representation handled so as to ensure some degree of equitable opportunity for the various stakeholders 9. other... Mike On 22 March 2013 21:58, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 22 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > In any case, if the idea is to go forward, in whatever way, it will > > need a volunteer to move it forward. > > > BTW "there should be fewer workshops" has *not* been adopted as an > > IGC consensus position. The thought was included in the recent IGC > > statement, but only with a "Some of us suggest:" qualifier, because > > it did not get consensus otherwise. > > > > > OK, could you check. I don't remember anyone saying more workshops > better, perhaps one saying it wasn't an issue, and quite a number > saying less would be good (one way or another saying a drop in numbers > would be good). > > > I do. I like there being a lot of diversity in the workshop offerings. I > think a better job should be done of threading them so that like does not > compete with like in the same time slot. > > But I do beleive that in any of the themes one should be able to attend > something in that theme in most every time slot if that is ones pleasure or > need. > > I also have no problem with workshops that have too few attendees. Both > on the IGF were I participated in a workshop with fewer than 10 people > came, and at recent ILGA world conference where only 3 people came to a > session i was giving, we had a great session. And since the IGF allows us > to capture the sound and transcript of every workshop no matter how > sparsely attended, they are all available to all of us and to all > stakeholders, no matter how few people attend initially. > > I think that we only bring this group together once a year on a global > level and we should allow for all the conversations possible, even if it is > only among a handful of people who would not share otherwise on this topic. > > > > it does matter. Seems one of the reasons for this preliminary > proposal process is to try and reduce the number of workshops, to > reduce duplicates on the same topic, and to make the barrier a bit > higher for frequent contributors. If there really isn't consensus > that the number of workshops should be reduced this year (there were > 11 parallel tracks in Baku) then CS MAG members might like to know > that's the prevailing view. > > > As I said I have a dissenting view. I think the more MAG pares things > down, the more they reduce the information that will be shared and the more > they curtail the opportunities for capacity building. I also think it is a > waste of their time, they have more important issues to work on that the > endless haggle over workshops. > > I do agree with those who say we should have more free time, although I > think free time is largely found by skipping sessions for other activities > from time to time. I also think that there should be decent free time > intervals between sessions to allow chat time at the end of a workshop. > Unless food is being offered by the host, I would prefer a schedule that > ran through the day of (90 minute sessions followed by 30 minute breaks > from 8am tile 8pm with not specific feeding time. We travel far for the > opportunity to meet, so lets meet as much as possible while at the meeting. > People don't need to go to all meetings, but all meetings need to be held. > Sell sandwiches the hungry can bring to the sessions or sit in a nice > environment and char over. Wasting a workshop time slot with lunch makes > no sense to me - unless of course it is a cultural affair where the hosts > treats the assembled. > > avri > > ILGA - International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and > Intersex Association: a worldwide federation campaigning for lesbian, gay, > bisexual, trans and intersex rights, since 1978. > MAG - Multistakeholder Advisory > Group > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 14:49:25 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:49:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] IP Watch / German Parliament Votes To Protect News Snippets From Republishing Message-ID: <514CA7B5.8060100@gmail.com> If they were Chinese? German Parliament Votes To Protect News Snippets From Republishing Published on 22 March 2013 @ 4:21 pm Print This Post Print This Post Intellectual Property Watch By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/ Munich -- A controversial update to German copyright law providing for an auxiliary protection for tiny extracts from press articles has been finally passed by the German Upper House ("Bundesrat"). What has been characterised and campaigned against as a "lex Google" not only by Google, but also by Germany's industry associations, journalist associations and activists alike shall prevent internet platforms from using publishers' content without licensing (and payment) except for "single words" or "minimal extracts". The legislation originally targeting Google's news services has been heavily criticised by the opposition in German Parliament and was passed against the votes of Social Democrats, Green Party and the Left on 1 March. Yet the Social Democrats caved before the vote today and accepted what they themselves had called a very bad law. The Green Party, which had hoped the law could be delayed until after the election, called it a "legislative botch". Statements in German follow: Bundesrat statement is here . Green Party press release is here . Social Democrats' press release is here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 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 Fri Mar 22 17:06:21 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:06:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Updates Message-ID: Dear All *Workshop Proposal 1* * * If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of thoughts or ideas - please let us know. So far we have Ian and Anja who have volunteered to assist Norbert in this regard. At the moment, the moderator has yet to be confirmed although discussions on the Workshop Name and mode are under discussion with all the stakeholder focal points, namely Anriette E [Civil Society], Ayesha H [Private Sector] and Constance B [Academic and Technical]. The IGC will be moderating the discussion. Other than issues that have already been raised on the list, if there are specific issues that you would like considered or ideas, please let us know so we can effectively channel them across. We can create a specific mailing list for those within the IGC who are interested in contributing thoughts and feedback to Workshop 1 which we can also use for notification of workshop developments. At the moment, the Workshop format is designed as a Panel Discussion. There are tentative suggestions of allowing for people to send statements to an email address or online platform where the issues can be extracted prior to the Workshop for discussion amongst the Panel. There is also discussion on how the Working Document can be useful for things other than the CSTD process. There is some excellent dialogue between the various focal points on the Workshop and there is time for tweaking the Draft Proposal. *On Workshop Proposal 2* If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of thoughts or ideas - please let us know. We are also looking for volunteers to work towards brainstorming in this regard. We have received names of those who have volunteered and thank you. We may also create a mailing list to have this discussed as well. *Other Matters* On the Issue of the Network Neutrality Proposal, if you have time to put together a Workshop Proposal and want the IGC to submit it, there is time to put it to the IGC for a 48 hour call for consensus. Please send us a Draft asap so that we can put it to the IGC for their thoughts. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, parminder wrote: > > Thanks all > > Good we have got two good workshop proposals from IGC to work on. > > (Although not sure why we could nt agree on the propsoed on net neutrality > - given that it was proposed by IGC as a key policy question for a man > session for the MAG meeting in Paris.) > > Anyway, can the co-coordinators instruct us what is the process to go > forward from here. If possible, I/ ITfC would like to participate in > organising both the workshops. Are we going to do further work here on the > IGC or in a smaller group. > Thanks > > parminder > > > On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of you > for participating. > > Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, two > Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued > accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. > > Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where > there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear *is > very likely to change* and face improvements. We also note the comments > in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all feedback in the > near future. > > We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are > noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the Workshop > Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we received the > following response:- > * > 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. > * > * Workshop Proposal 1* > 26 people agreed with the proposal > 1 person disagreed with the proposal > > *Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* > > *Workshop Proposal 2* > 21 people agreed with the proposal > 3 people disagreed with the proposal > 3 people abstained from commenting > * > Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* > > For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: > > > > Subscribers of IGC > > Workshop Proposal 1 > > Workshop Proposal 2 > > 1. > > McTim > > -1 > > +1 > > 2. > > Ian Peter > > +1 > > +1 > > 3. > > Sarah Kiden > > +1 > > > 4. > > Ginger Paque > > +1 > > +1 > > 5. > > Avri Doria > > +1 > > -1 > > 6. > > Nnenna > > +1 > > +1 > > 7. > > Michael Gurstein > > +1 > > +1 > > 8. > > Jose Felix Arias Ynche > > +1 > > > 9. > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > > +1 > > +1 > > 10. > > Tapani Tarvainen > > +1 > > +1 > > 11. > > Fouad Bajwa > > +1 > > +1 > > 12. > > Norbert Bollow > > +1 > > +1 > > 13. > > Anja Kovacs > > +1 > > +1 > > 14. > > William Drake > > +1 > > -1 > > 15. > > Adam Peake > > +1 > > -1 > > 16. > > Oksana Prykhodko > > +1 > > +1 > > 17. > > Parminder > > +1 > > +1 > > 18. > > Walid Al Saqaf > > +1 > > +1 > > 19. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > +1 > > +1 > > 20. > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > +1 > > +1 > > 21. > > Shala Mistry > > +1 > > +1 > > 22. > > Guru > > +1 > > +1 > > 23. > > Izumi Aizu > > +1 > > +1 > > 24. > > Boudouin Schombe > > +1 > > > 25. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > +1 > > +1 > > 26. > > Vanda Scartezini > > +1 > > +1 > > 27. > > Kerry Brown > > +1 > > +1 > > > > We thank everyone for your input. > > Yours sincerely, > > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Coordinators* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Mar 22 17:16:05 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:16:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Updates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m rushing out, but just a brief update Sala – Workshop 1 is being described as “Other”, not a panel discussion, to take into account Anja’s suggestions on format. From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Subject: [governance] Updates Dear All Workshop Proposal 1 If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of thoughts or ideas - please let us know. So far we have Ian and Anja who have volunteered to assist Norbert in this regard. At the moment, the moderator has yet to be confirmed although discussions on the Workshop Name and mode are under discussion with all the stakeholder focal points, namely Anriette E [Civil Society], Ayesha H [Private Sector] and Constance B [Academic and Technical]. The IGC will be moderating the discussion. Other than issues that have already been raised on the list, if there are specific issues that you would like considered or ideas, please let us know so we can effectively channel them across. We can create a specific mailing list for those within the IGC who are interested in contributing thoughts and feedback to Workshop 1 which we can also use for notification of workshop developments. At the moment, the Workshop format is designed as a Panel Discussion. There are tentative suggestions of allowing for people to send statements to an email address or online platform where the issues can be extracted prior to the Workshop for discussion amongst the Panel. There is also discussion on how the Working Document can be useful for things other than the CSTD process. There is some excellent dialogue between the various focal points on the Workshop and there is time for tweaking the Draft Proposal. On Workshop Proposal 2 If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of thoughts or ideas - please let us know. We are also looking for volunteers to work towards brainstorming in this regard. We have received names of those who have volunteered and thank you. We may also create a mailing list to have this discussed as well. Other Matters On the Issue of the Network Neutrality Proposal, if you have time to put together a Workshop Proposal and want the IGC to submit it, there is time to put it to the IGC for a 48 hour call for consensus. Please send us a Draft asap so that we can put it to the IGC for their thoughts. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, parminder wrote: Thanks all Good we have got two good workshop proposals from IGC to work on. (Although not sure why we could nt agree on the propsoed on net neutrality - given that it was proposed by IGC as a key policy question for a man session for the MAG meeting in Paris.) Anyway, can the co-coordinators instruct us what is the process to go forward from here. If possible, I/ ITfC would like to participate in organising both the workshops. Are we going to do further work here on the IGC or in a smaller group. Thanks parminder On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of you for participating. Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, two Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear is very likely to change and face improvements. We also note the comments in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all feedback in the near future. We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the Workshop Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we received the following response:- 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. Workshop Proposal 1 26 people agreed with the proposal 1 person disagreed with the proposal Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR Workshop Proposal 2 21 people agreed with the proposal 3 people disagreed with the proposal 3 people abstained from commenting Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: Subscribers of IGC Workshop Proposal 1 Workshop Proposal 2 1. McTim -1 +1 2. Ian Peter +1 +1 3. Sarah Kiden +1 4. Ginger Paque +1 +1 5. Avri Doria +1 -1 6. Nnenna +1 +1 7. Michael Gurstein +1 +1 8. Jose Felix Arias Ynche +1 9. Suresh Ramasubramanium +1 +1 10. Tapani Tarvainen +1 +1 11. Fouad Bajwa +1 +1 12. Norbert Bollow +1 +1 13. Anja Kovacs +1 +1 14. William Drake +1 -1 15. Adam Peake +1 -1 16. Oksana Prykhodko +1 +1 17. Parminder +1 +1 18. Walid Al Saqaf +1 +1 19. Thomas Lowenhaupt +1 +1 20. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro +1 +1 21. Shala Mistry +1 +1 22. Guru +1 +1 23. Izumi Aizu +1 +1 24. Boudouin Schombe +1 25. Sonigitu Ekpe +1 +1 26. Vanda Scartezini +1 +1 27. Kerry Brown +1 +1 We thank everyone for your input. Yours sincerely, Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Coordinators ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 17:30:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:30:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Updates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ian. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I’m rushing out, but just a brief update Sala – Workshop 1 is being > described as “Other”, not a panel discussion, to take into account Anja’s > suggestions on format. > > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:06 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder > *Subject:* [governance] Updates > > Dear All > > > *Workshop Proposal 1* > * > * > If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of > thoughts or ideas - please let us know. So far we have Ian and Anja who > have volunteered to assist Norbert in this regard. > > At the moment, the moderator has yet to be confirmed although discussions > on the Workshop Name and mode are under discussion with all the stakeholder > focal points, namely Anriette E [Civil Society], Ayesha H [Private Sector] > and Constance B [Academic and Technical]. > > The IGC will be moderating the discussion. Other than issues that have > already been raised on the list, if there are specific issues that you > would like considered or ideas, please let us know so we can effectively > channel them across. We can create a specific mailing list for those within > the IGC who are interested in contributing thoughts and feedback to > Workshop 1 which we can also use for notification of workshop developments. > > At the moment, the Workshop format is designed as a Panel Discussion. > There are tentative suggestions of allowing for people to send statements > to an email address or online platform where the issues can be extracted > prior to the Workshop for discussion amongst the Panel. > > There is also discussion on how the Working Document can be useful for > things other than the CSTD process. There is some excellent dialogue > between the various focal points on the Workshop and there is time for > tweaking the Draft Proposal. > > *On Workshop Proposal 2* > > If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of > thoughts or ideas - please let us know. We are also looking for volunteers > to work towards brainstorming in this regard. We have received names of > those who have volunteered and thank you. We may also create a mailing list > to have this discussed as well. > > *Other Matters* > > On the Issue of the Network Neutrality Proposal, if you have time to put > together a Workshop Proposal and want the IGC to submit it, there is time > to put it to the IGC for a 48 hour call for consensus. Please send us a > Draft asap so that we can put it to the IGC for their thoughts. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Thanks all >> >> Good we have got two good workshop proposals from IGC to work on. >> >> (Although not sure why we could nt agree on the propsoed on net >> neutrality - given that it was proposed by IGC as a key policy question >> for a man session for the MAG meeting in Paris.) >> >> Anyway, can the co-coordinators instruct us what is the process to go >> forward from here. If possible, I/ ITfC would like to participate in >> organising both the workshops. Are we going to do further work here on the >> IGC or in a smaller group. >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of you >> for participating. >> >> Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, two >> Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued >> accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. >> >> Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where >> there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear *is >> very likely to change* and face improvements. We also note the comments >> in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all feedback in the >> near future. >> >> We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are >> noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the Workshop >> Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we received the >> following response:- >> * >> 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. >> * >> *Workshop Proposal 1* >> 26 people agreed with the proposal >> 1 person disagreed with the proposal >> >> *Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* >> >> *Workshop Proposal 2* >> 21 people agreed with the proposal >> 3 people disagreed with the proposal >> 3 people abstained from commenting >> * >> Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* >> >> For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: >> >> >> >> Subscribers of IGC >> >> Workshop Proposal 1 >> >> Workshop Proposal 2 >> >> 1. >> >> McTim >> >> -1 >> >> +1 >> >> 2. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 3. >> >> Sarah Kiden >> >> +1 >> >> >> 4. >> >> Ginger Paque >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 5. >> >> Avri Doria >> >> +1 >> >> -1 >> >> 6. >> >> Nnenna >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 7. >> >> Michael Gurstein >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 8. >> >> Jose Felix Arias Ynche >> >> +1 >> >> >> 9. >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanium >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 10. >> >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 11. >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 12. >> >> Norbert Bollow >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 13. >> >> Anja Kovacs >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 14. >> >> William Drake >> >> +1 >> >> -1 >> >> 15. >> >> Adam Peake >> >> +1 >> >> -1 >> >> 16. >> >> Oksana Prykhodko >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 17. >> >> Parminder >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 18. >> >> Walid Al Saqaf >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 19. >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 20. >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 21. >> >> Shala Mistry >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 22. >> >> Guru >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 23. >> >> Izumi Aizu >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 24. >> >> Boudouin Schombe >> >> +1 >> >> >> 25. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 26. >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> 27. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> +1 >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> We thank everyone for your input. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> *Coordinators* >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Mar 22 17:57:32 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:57:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Updates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Estoy interesado en contribuir al Taller 1 por medio de mis pensamientos y mis ideas... *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/22 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Thanks Ian. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I’m rushing out, but just a brief update Sala – Workshop 1 is being >> described as “Other”, not a panel discussion, to take into account Anja’s >> suggestions on format. >> >> *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:06 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder >> *Subject:* [governance] Updates >> >> Dear All >> >> >> *Workshop Proposal 1* >> * >> * >> If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of >> thoughts or ideas - please let us know. So far we have Ian and Anja who >> have volunteered to assist Norbert in this regard. >> >> At the moment, the moderator has yet to be confirmed although discussions >> on the Workshop Name and mode are under discussion with all the stakeholder >> focal points, namely Anriette E [Civil Society], Ayesha H [Private Sector] >> and Constance B [Academic and Technical]. >> >> The IGC will be moderating the discussion. Other than issues that have >> already been raised on the list, if there are specific issues that you >> would like considered or ideas, please let us know so we can effectively >> channel them across. We can create a specific mailing list for those within >> the IGC who are interested in contributing thoughts and feedback to >> Workshop 1 which we can also use for notification of workshop developments. >> >> At the moment, the Workshop format is designed as a Panel Discussion. >> There are tentative suggestions of allowing for people to send statements >> to an email address or online platform where the issues can be extracted >> prior to the Workshop for discussion amongst the Panel. >> >> There is also discussion on how the Working Document can be useful for >> things other than the CSTD process. There is some excellent dialogue >> between the various focal points on the Workshop and there is time for >> tweaking the Draft Proposal. >> >> *On Workshop Proposal 2* >> >> If anyone is interested in either contributing to Workshop 1 by way of >> thoughts or ideas - please let us know. We are also looking for volunteers >> to work towards brainstorming in this regard. We have received names of >> those who have volunteered and thank you. We may also create a mailing list >> to have this discussed as well. >> >> *Other Matters* >> >> On the Issue of the Network Neutrality Proposal, if you have time to put >> together a Workshop Proposal and want the IGC to submit it, there is time >> to put it to the IGC for a 48 hour call for consensus. Please send us a >> Draft asap so that we can put it to the IGC for their thoughts. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks all >>> >>> Good we have got two good workshop proposals from IGC to work on. >>> >>> (Although not sure why we could nt agree on the propsoed on net >>> neutrality - given that it was proposed by IGC as a key policy question >>> for a man session for the MAG meeting in Paris.) >>> >>> Anyway, can the co-coordinators instruct us what is the process to go >>> forward from here. If possible, I/ ITfC would like to participate in >>> organising both the workshops. Are we going to do further work here on the >>> IGC or in a smaller group. >>> Thanks >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 21 March 2013 09:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Given the short deadline, we would like to thank each and everyone of >>> you for participating. >>> >>> Following discussions on the list in relation to Workshop Proposals, two >>> Draft Proposals was put to the IGC and a call for consensus issued >>> accompanied by reminders. These Draft Proposals are attached. >>> >>> Noting that the Proposals are still in their Draft form and that where >>> there are joint proposals, the form in which the proposals appear *is >>> very likely to change* and face improvements. We also note the comments >>> in relation to modification - we will be consolidating all feedback in the >>> near future. >>> >>> We thank those of you who have contributed to the discussions and are >>> noting all comments and suggestions. To summarise, when we put the Workshop >>> Proposals to the IGC and sought a Call for Consensus, we received the >>> following response:- >>> * >>> 27 people participated in the Call for Consensus. >>> * >>> *Workshop Proposal 1* >>> 26 people agreed with the proposal >>> 1 person disagreed with the proposal >>> >>> *Coordinators Summation: CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* >>> >>> *Workshop Proposal 2* >>> 21 people agreed with the proposal >>> 3 people disagreed with the proposal >>> 3 people abstained from commenting >>> * >>> Coordinators Summation: ROUGH CONSENSUS IN FAVOUR* >>> >>> For a detailed Summary of the Results, please see the Table below: >>> >>> >>> >>> Subscribers of IGC >>> >>> Workshop Proposal 1 >>> >>> Workshop Proposal 2 >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> McTim >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 3. >>> >>> Sarah Kiden >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> 4. >>> >>> Ginger Paque >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 5. >>> >>> Avri Doria >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> 6. >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 7. >>> >>> Michael Gurstein >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 8. >>> >>> Jose Felix Arias Ynche >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> 9. >>> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanium >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 10. >>> >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 11. >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 12. >>> >>> Norbert Bollow >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 13. >>> >>> Anja Kovacs >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 14. >>> >>> William Drake >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> 15. >>> >>> Adam Peake >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> 16. >>> >>> Oksana Prykhodko >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 17. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 18. >>> >>> Walid Al Saqaf >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 19. >>> >>> Thomas Lowenhaupt >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 20. >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 21. >>> >>> Shala Mistry >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 22. >>> >>> Guru >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 23. >>> >>> Izumi Aizu >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 24. >>> >>> Boudouin Schombe >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> 25. >>> >>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 26. >>> >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 27. >>> >>> Kerry Brown >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> We thank everyone for your input. >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> *Coordinators* >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 susan at internetnz.net.nz Fri Mar 22 20:10:37 2013 From: susan at internetnz.net.nz (Susan Chalmers) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:10:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Invitation to APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, all, I shall be in attendance. Thank you for the invitation and I look forward to seeing you again. Warm regards, Susan On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > For those of you who will be in Beijing for the ICANN meeting, I have the > pleasure of extending this invitation to you. See below for details. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim > Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM > Subject: [ALAC] APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing > To: ALAC Working List , At-Large Worldwide < > at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, apralo < > apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > euro-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org, > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org, > afri-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org, > na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Dear ALAC Colleagues and Members of the At-Large Community, > > I am pleased to share with you the finalized program for the APRALO > Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing (attached and pasted below). Holly > Raiche and I hope that you will all attend and participate in the > discussions, which will focus on end user protection related to new gTLDs > and community readiness for IDN Variant TLDs. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia Abdul Rahim > Co-Chair, APRALO Beijing Organizing Committee > ALAC, Executive Committee > Vice Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group > > --- > > *APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable * > > *@ ICANN 46 [Beijing, PRC]* > > > > Date: 8 April 2013 (Monday) > > Time: 17:00-19:00 > > Meeting Room: Function Room 6 > > > > ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will bring a dramatic > expansion of the Top Level Domain Space where 1930 new gTLD applications > have been received. 303 (15.7%) of the new gTLD applications are from the > Asia Pacific region and 100 (86%) of the new gTLD applications for > Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) are for the languages of the Asia > Pacific region. The APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing > will feature discussions on two thematic areas related to the new gTLDs > with an emphasis on issues of concern to the end user and the public > interest. > > > > [17:00-18:00] Policy Roundtable I - End User Protection with New gTLDs > > [18:00-19:00] Policy Roundtable II - Community Readiness for IDN Variant > TLDs > > > > *Policy Roundtable I **[17:00-18:00]*** > > Theme: New gTLDs and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific Region > > Topic: End User Protection with New gTLDs > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. How can end users be best protected in the event that new gTLDs fail > or are unsustainable? > > 2. What are the issues associated with turning applicant commitments > into contractual obligations? > > 3. What are the issues related to the enforceability of contractual > obligations and what recommendations should be made regarding the scaling > up of ICANN compliance? > > > > Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia > Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) > > > > *Lead Discussants:* > > 1. End User – Jeremy Malcolm (Senior Policy Officer, Consumers > International) > > 2. Government – Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory > Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) > > 3. Business – Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business > Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) > > 4. ICANN Compliance - Maguy Serad (Vice President, ICANN Contractual > Compliance Services) > > > > Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN > community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, > ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board, > ICANN Legal & Law Enforcement. > > * * > > *Policy Roundtable II **[18:00-19:00]*** > > Theme: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the > Asian-Australasian-Pacific > region. > > Topic: Community Readiness for IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) > > Discussion Questions: > > 1. Will the introduction of IDN Variant TLDs de-stabilize the Internet > and undermine its security? > > 2. What is the level of readiness among language communities already > active in ICANN in forming “Generation Panels” to propose script character > repertoires and variant rules for the Root Zone that will enable variant > IDN TLDs? What are the key issues in moving forward? > > 3. How can the readiness of language communities not yet active in > ICANN be supported? > > > > Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia > Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) > > > > Moderator: Edmon Chung (Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group & At-Large IDN > Policy Liaison) > > * * > > *Discussants:* > > · Arabic Script - *Sarmad* Hussain (Al-Khawarizmi Institute of > Computer Science, Pakistan) > > · Chinese Script – Wang Wei (China Domain Name Consortium) > > · Indic Script - Ram Mohan (Afilias) > > · Japanese Script – Hiro Hotta / Yoshiro Yonaya (Japan Registry > Services) > > *· **Khmer Script - Norbert Klein (Internet Society Cambodia) *** > > *· *Korean Script - *Young*-*eum Lee (Korea National Open > University)* > ** > > *· **Sinhala Script - *Harsha Wijayawardhana (Internet Society Sri > Lanka) ** > > · *ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee - *Jim Galvin > (Deputy Chair, SSAC) > > > > Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN > community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, > ICANN Variant Implementation Program Team, ICANN IDNA Root Label Generation > Project Team Members, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting > Organizations, ICANN Board. > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > > > > -- > 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 > > -- --- Susan Chalmers Policy Lead InternetNZ PO Box 11-881 Manners St Wellington 6142 +64 4 495 2339 susan at internetnz.net.nz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Mar 22 22:40:18 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:40:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Message-ID: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Mar 23 02:13:50 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:13:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 23 04:56:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:26:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> On Friday 22 March 2013 12:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others. > (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...) > > So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right > process. Starting with what's right for civil society. Ok, sure, happy to take forward the discussion. Will begin with Nnenna's lament of " lack of clear principles on methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. " It is important we develop some principles for civil society representation and selections. And here I will like to start with top level issue highlighted in Michael's list of questions about the 'role of the focal point'. Frequently, based on their recognised work and presence in the area, some CS individuals/ organisations are asked by 'authorities' to provide civil society representatives as speakers, members of WGs and committees and so on. We should have clear principles and guidelines for how anyone who is given such a responsibility should carry it out. Along with other principles for representation and selection, we can get a set of guidelines and principles for 'focal points' adopted by the IGC as a resolution, and then get then perhaps also adopted by other CS networks in the area and have these principles well documented and publicized so that everyone in the future do goes by them. That would be an important tangible step forward. I suggest some such principles and guidelines for 'focal points'. Whenever anyone or any organisation is given the role of 'focal point' (or a similar role by another name), such a role needs to be seen as a responsibility to be taken on the behalf of civil society, and not as a privilege. Being put into any such role -whatever be the communication from the concerned authorities - should be seen as given the duty to 'organise a selection process' and not taken as the privilege 'do the selection'. The communication about being given such a role should be immediately publicised among all civil society networks. Their may be special circumstances (mostly, shortage of time) that do not allow the possibility of organising an ideal selection process (basic principles of which are provided elsewhere), in which case some ad hoc measures may be used (some principles/ guidelines for which are also provided separately), which should however be minimal and reasons thereof fully accounted for. Shortage of time should not be used as an excuse to avoid organising all aspects of an 'appropriate selection process'. As much of the ideal selection process as possible should be organised, and as little of it as absolutely required should may replaced by ad hoc process(es). Any ad hoc measures obviously leave some matters to the discretion of the concerned person/ organisation. They should however be fully willing and available to have them debated and to defend them. For this purpose, all information about such ad hoc matters should be made public, unless clear reasons against such transparency can be provided. Even for such ad hoc measures, some basic self-guidelines should be developed and documented. While the focal point needs to fully justify resorting to any and every ad hoc process, all information about them in any case should be made publicly available so that others can form an independent opinion on them. Maybe we can also add something to the effect that: Civil society has strong traditions of a deliberative culture, and extreme transparency and accountability. In any post -selections discussion it is but normal that some may not agree with some processes that were employed, especially if some ad hoc arrangements were involved as per above. Any focal point that would have chosen would and should be strong enough to stand such critical comments and provide justification from its side, and stand by it. While undue personalised comments should not be made in such discussions (and will not be accepted in any discussions), it is also important that genuine engagement, even criticism, of the process should not be construed as personal criticism or targeting. There are other issues but well, the above is one set. More later. parminder > And > respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not > enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-) Or, more seriously, > might have their own reasons for doing things differently. > > Adam > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]: >>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you >>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of >>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the >>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an >>>> accomplice in its silence. >>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority >> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a >> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what civil >> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case >> of the recent tech/acad community related episode... >> >> >> >> >>> - which might not be >>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped. >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Mar 23 05:08:48 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:08:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Mailing List to Discuss Workshop Proposals] Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings from Fiji! I trust that this email finds you well and in excellent health. As promised, we have created two mailing lists for the purposes of focusing the discussions on issues in relation to the Workshop Proposals. The two specific mailing lists are: WS1IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 1] WS2IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 2] Should you be interested in subscribing to either of these mailing lists, please let us know by sending us a message on and advise us which mailing list you would like to subscribe to. It would be helpful if you placed WS1 or WS2 in the Subject Header or if you wish to subscribe to both, then put WS1 & WS 2 in the Subject header. As mentioned in the previous update, these mailing lists will allow for dedicated and focused discussion on the kinds of issues that should and could possibly be teased out. Thank you. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala *co-coordinator* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 23 05:14:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:44:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> Message-ID: <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am > extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal > warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define > territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in > guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – > like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from > civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law > that really should not apply. > This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is > likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely > concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list > who are more knowledgeable in this area. I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. parminder > Ian Peter > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set > of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. > Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee > of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, the/Tallinn Manual on the > International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare/ > analyzes > the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored > cyberattacks. > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 23 07:02:01 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:02:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Mailing List to Discuss Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I don't recall us reaching consensus on whether this was a good idea or not. Did I miss that? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings from Fiji! > > I trust that this email finds you well and in excellent health. As promised, > we have created two mailing lists for the purposes of focusing the > discussions on issues in relation to the Workshop Proposals. The two > specific mailing lists are: > > WS1IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 1] > > WS2IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 2] > > > Should you be interested in subscribing to either of these mailing lists, > please let us know by sending us a message on > and advise us which mailing list you would like to subscribe to. It would be > helpful if you placed WS1 or WS2 in the Subject Header or if you wish to > subscribe to both, then put WS1 & WS 2 in the Subject header. > > As mentioned in the previous update, these mailing lists will allow for > dedicated and focused discussion on the kinds of issues that should and > could possibly be teased out. > > Thank you. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > co-coordinator > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mar 23 07:06:15 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:06:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Mailing List to Discuss Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear McTim, The specific mailing list to discuss workshop related matters is a matter of administration so as not to lose the multiple threads that have been emerging from the robust and diverse discussions. It is also to allow breathing space on the IGC list for other things that are coming up shortly that will require attention and as you can imagine all subscribers are busy people in their own right. This is part of administrative efficiency which we as coordinators exercised our discretion to do so. Hope this clarifies things. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:02 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > I don't recall us reaching consensus on whether this was a good idea or > not. > > Did I miss that? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Warm Greetings from Fiji! > > > > I trust that this email finds you well and in excellent health. As > promised, > > we have created two mailing lists for the purposes of focusing the > > discussions on issues in relation to the Workshop Proposals. The two > > specific mailing lists are: > > > > WS1IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 1] > > > > WS2IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 2] > > > > > > Should you be interested in subscribing to either of these mailing lists, > > please let us know by sending us a message on > > > and advise us which mailing list you would like to subscribe to. It > would be > > helpful if you placed WS1 or WS2 in the Subject Header or if you wish to > > subscribe to both, then put WS1 & WS 2 in the Subject header. > > > > As mentioned in the previous update, these mailing lists will allow for > > dedicated and focused discussion on the kinds of issues that should and > > could possibly be teased out. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > co-coordinator > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Mar 23 09:36:09 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:36:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results Message-ID: <514DAFC9.4000308@cafonso.ca> Dear people, [my excuses for eventual duplication] CGI.br has just presented a report on the results of a anti-spam campaign initiated in 2005 recommending Internet service providers to block SMTP service port 25. This has been a protracted effort trying to weight the pros and cons with users and the main broadband providers in the country. A CGI.br working group supported by NIC.br techies has been in a relentless pilgrimage to the ISPs to persuade them of the direct impact on spam in implementing this measure. The blocking does not affect email users, since webmail continues to operate normally without any reconfiguration, and users just reconfigure SMTP in their mail clients to use port 587 instead. Nearly all email service providers have already implemented secure access via port 587. The campaign emphasizes educating final users on the importance of this measure and on reconfiguring their mail programs to adjust to it. The adoption of the anti-spam measure has been slow, but from 2009 it picked up speed and the results can be seen in the graph (http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-12.htm). In 2009 Brazil was first in the CBL spam lists with more than one million IPs, 17% of all listed IPs. Now, it is listed in 12th place with just 2% of all listed IPs, and the curve is clearly descending. One very relevant point is that the entire process is based on consensus and mutual collaboration -- no need for regulations or imposition of rules. The awareness campaign's main sources are (in Brazilian Portuguese): http://antispam.br/ http://cartilha.cert.br/ fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Mar 23 09:40:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:40:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> On 23 Mar 2013, at 04:56, parminder wrote: > It is important we develop some principles for civil society representation and selections. Fair enough. > > And here I will like to start with top level issue highlighted in Michael's list of questions about the 'role of the focal point'. Frequently, based on their recognised work and presence in the area, some CS individuals/ organisations are asked by 'authorities' to provide civil society representatives as speakers, members of WGs and committees and so on. We should have clear principles and guidelines for how anyone who is given such a responsibility should carry it out. Though I would start by looking at some of the principles that have been used by those selected as focal points over the years. I think that generally the choices made by these focal points have been done in a principled manner, so we may already have a set of principles. They just aren't gathered in one place as a reference or guideline. So I think it is more an act of discovering and gathering than developing. > > Along with other principles for representation and selection, we can get a set of guidelines and principles for 'focal points' adopted by the IGC as a resolution, and then get then perhaps also adopted by other CS networks in the area and have these principles well documented and publicized so that everyone in the future do goes by them. That would be an important tangible step forward. As long as we don't go beyond guidelines to rules. Each of the situations that call for a focal point to take some action will be different. One of the problems with principles and guidelines is they sometimes become stuck as rules that allow no deviation and are used as weapons against the focal point. > > I suggest some such principles and guidelines for 'focal points'. > > Whenever anyone or any organisation is given the role of 'focal point' (or a similar role by another name), such a role needs to be seen as a responsibility to be taken on the behalf of civil society, and not as a privilege. fair enough. > > Being put into any such role -whatever be the communication from the concerned authorities - should be seen as given the duty to 'organise a selection process' and not taken as the privilege 'do the selection'. That depends. If a speaker is needed in an hour, that process might need to be quite abbreviated and may indeed look like a selection. And sometimes, even if is look more like a selection, that does not mean that one is doing it is considering it a privilege, but rather that they are accepting a responsibility to their best of behalf of CS and accepting the reality that they may be punished by CS, no matter what they do.. > > The communication about being given such a role should be immediately publicised among all civil society networks. In principle I agree. But what does 'immediately' mean? Does it mean one gets berated if someone else published the notification before the focal point has the chance to do so? Words like 'immediately' are useful for the gotcha mentality that makes sure that no matter what someone in a focal position does it is open to righteous attack. > > Their may be special circumstances (mostly, shortage of time) that do not allow the possibility of organising an ideal selection process (basic principles of which are provided elsewhere), in which case some ad hoc measures may be used (some principles/ guidelines for which are also provided separately), which should however be minimal and reasons thereof fully accounted for. Shortage of time should not be used as an excuse to avoid organising all aspects of an 'appropriate selection process'. As much of the ideal selection process as possible should be organised, and as little of it as absolutely required should may replaced by ad hoc process(es). While I recognize that one should have reasons for deviating from accepted practice, to call it an excuse is once again to set the focal point up for an attack. > > Any ad hoc measures obviously leave some matters to the discretion of the concerned person/ organisation. They should however be fully willing and available to have them debated and to defend them. For this purpose, all information about such ad hoc matters should be made public, unless clear reasons against such transparency can be provided. Even for such ad hoc measures, some basic self-guidelines should be developed and documented. While the focal point needs to fully justify resorting to any and every ad hoc process, all information about them in any case should be made publicly available so that others can form an independent opinion on them. Again: ' to defend'. why not 'to explain'. The presumption seems to be that the focal point will do something wrong and will be the target of attack. Why build this notion into the principles and guidelines? Yes, they should expect questions about what they do, but to have it defined from the start as a need 'to defend' seems to put the process on the wrong footing as an adversarial process. What 'to any and every' ad-hoc process mean? To me it looks like yet another way to setup the focal point for criticism. I can already hear "You forgot to mention xyz - you are a bad focal point" in the future if we adopt principles and guidelines with such terms and attitudes. > > Maybe we can also add something to the effect that: > > Civil society has strong traditions of a deliberative culture, and extreme transparency and accountability. In any post -selections discussion it is but normal that some may not agree with some processes that were employed, especially if some ad hoc arrangements were involved as per above. Any focal point that would have chosen would and should be strong enough to stand such critical comments and provide justification from its side, and stand by it. While undue personalised comments should not be made in such discussions (and will not be accepted in any discussions), it is also important that genuine engagement, even criticism, of the process should not be construed as personal criticism or targeting. While anyone who does anything in CS needs thick skin, especially on the IGC, I think building in a notion of there being 'due personalized comments' (assuming the word undue implies a notion of due) is problematic. I read this as warning any focal point who dares accept such responsibility that they will need to run the gauntlet. Not a good way to start in my opinion. > > There are other issues but well, the above is one set. More later. One thing that worries me in this note and in this conversation taken at this point is that some may decide that there is implied criticism of the process that was used in CS this time around. I think the relatively established processes, though it had its adhoc moments, followed by IGC and the crafted for purpose process followed by Anriette where both very well done and are above all forms of criticism other than nitpicking. I think they make good exemplars. And although I have already sent thanks to both personally, I want to acknowledge here how honored I was to be picked in both of these processes for candidacy. Thanks avri - CS - Civil Society - Run the gauntlet - A form of medieval punishment (still used in various secret societies today) where a person would need to run between two lines of knightly who took their opportunity to beat you as you ran by. Generally taken today to mean "To go through a series of criticisms or harsh treatments at the hands of one's detractors." - Gotcha mentality - Basically a form of argument where a speaker sets up situations and questions in such a way that it becomes impossible for a respondent to respond without fueling an responding attack. Good examples of this can be seen in the interrogative modes of conversation used by groups such as police forces, regulators and senate committees. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 23 09:49:18 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:49:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IP Watch / German Parliament Votes To Protect News Snippets From Republishing In-Reply-To: References: <514CA7B5.8060100@gmail.com> Message-ID: So much for international law and compliance by rich countries, even in the case of poor countries being precluded from protecting people living with HIV despite legal rights to do so....the us is even being obstreperous after Antigua won a case and decided to cross retaliate on intellectual property rights, international law and rules are poor protection against politics... ...,... On 23 Mar 2013, at 12:26 PM, Jamie Love wrote: > This law is contrary the the following articles in the Berne Convention > > ------------------ > 2. (8) The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. > > 3. 10. (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. > ----------- > > Someone might have a GATT case against Germany, since a law that is too restrictive to trade can be challenged. > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> If they were Chinese? >> German Parliament Votes To Protect News Snippets From Republishing >> >> Published on 22 March 2013 @ 4:21 pm >> Print This Post >> >> Intellectual Property Watch >> >> By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch >> >> Munich – A controversial update to German copyright law providing for an auxiliary protection for tiny extracts from press articles has been finally passed by the German Upper House (“Bundesrat”). >> >> What has been characterised and campaigned against as a “lex Google” not only by Google, but also by Germany’s industry associations, journalist associations and activists alike shall prevent internet platforms from using publishers’ content without licensing (and payment) except for “single words” or “minimal extracts”. >> >> The legislation originally targeting Google’s news services has been heavily criticised by the opposition in German Parliament and was passed against the votes of Social Democrats, Green Party and the Left on 1 March. Yet the Social Democrats caved before the vote today and accepted what they themselves had called a very bad law. The Green Party, which had hoped the law could be delayed until after the election, called it a “legislative botch”. >> >> Statements in German follow: >> >> Bundesrat statement is here. >> >> Green Party press release is here. >> >> Social Democrats’ press release is here. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > James Love. Knowledge Ecology International > http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140. twitter.com/jamie_love -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 10:00:41 2013 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:00:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anyone explain this strange texting phenomena? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recently had a strange experience when a person I texted returned the text via forward after becoming really confused as to what I meant. I was very surprised because the text received was not the same words as the text I sent and still had in my outbox! About half of the words matched precisely and the other half (the first half or so) was an entirely unrelated couple sentences that I did not draft recently and tend to think I never drafted at any point in time (though I am not 100% sure that I didn't draft it 2 or more months ago). So I sent a text of four sentences but the first two sentences were omitted in what was received and they were replaced by two sentences that I certainly never drafted in the last 2 months and perhaps are not my writing at all. I realize that there are packets here and messages can be split up and thus arrive occasionally in jumbled orders or long delays also. But it seems to me to violate the "laws" of the "internet" (er, texting) for a message to NOT be split into packets but somehow have unrelated language substituted for what is probably the first packet of a two packet text, especially when its quite likely the substituted two sentences are something I never wrote to anybody at any time, and if I did write those substituted sentences it could only have been over 2 months ago and to a Different person than the one who received the confusing text from me, with only the second half of it correct. Whatever went on here AMOUNTS to mail tampering, even though likely no intent to tamper, because after I sent a message, a very different message was received shortly thereafter. This transmission was between two Samsung Galaxy phones on Verizon share everything plan, in case that helps. Who wants to "share" this way? Anybody have any ideas how this can happen? It certainly undermines the reliability of written texts as communication or as evidence if what you sent is not what is received and the words are half different and the substituted words don't come from any recent traffic of mine or the person I texted with. Thanks for any responded here or offline. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Mar 23 10:56:35 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:56:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: This was put forward as basis to specify the mission: On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM > ... > the lack of clear principles on methodology > ... Method is always important - but the discussion has been about purpose. Before method. For a reason. A folksy saying reminds: "If we don't know where we are going, any road will take us there ..." First, we establish purpose. Only after purpose is clear, then method may figure out how we get to that objective. Otherwise, ... The second blogpost goes straight to the question of purpose. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/ The question, in a nutshell, to define purpose: What role may MS possibly have in a democracy? Certainly not MS as a replacement - not, as for instance, the stance of the US exiting WCIT, in Kramer's sign-off. MS, not as the policy-making mechanism. Rather - perhaps - as a means toward greater engagement, within a democracy, as that second blogpost discusses. Policy is set by, and reserved to, democratic means. With, then, perhaps some clarity on purpose for MS - method can become the topic. ______ The eventual discussion of method, premature now, found fodder - nonetheless - in the below: So, let's say it again: “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in the entire world …" Sizes of the stakeholder groups are most starkly lopsided. Their constituencies, T/A compared with the other three. Different by a number of orders of magnitude. T/A is in the thousands. CS / business / governments are in the hundreds of millions, billions. Starting with the facts is the first step. Then, after the stark lopsidedness, representation. How would these three, or four, tribes represent each of their groups? Who will? The standard: Hard-won democratic governance has developed strenuous procedures for elections. In cases - for an example - where a society has yet to learn / adopt suitable procedures, international observers arrive and oversee election processes. To insure fair representation. Then, to suppose representation via a club of 'usual suspects,' perhaps three or four times a few dozen - a hundred or so in total - points at some of the worst of tribal outcomes. Clubby, elitist control of power, where mutual back-scratching proscribes serious critical analysis. Where interests served become private and individual, not the public interest. Such has been, across history, the path to some of the most despised outcomes. David On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:56 PM: > Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual > suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few > dozen each. > > > On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13: > >> Hi David, >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen >> wrote: >>> The T/A definition from its focal point: >>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >>> organizations/people who run it." >>> >>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. >> >> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable >> candidates would be closer to 30-40. >> >> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. >> >> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov >> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it >> were more than 30-40 from each SG. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Mar 23 12:50:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:50:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130323175053.277433d7@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > Though I would start by looking at some of the principles that have > been used by those selected as focal points over the years. I think > that generally the choices made by these focal points have been done > in a principled manner, so we may already have a set of principles. > They just aren't gathered in one place as a reference or guideline. Good point. In sure that the reports of the various IGC NomComs are another worthwhile source. I don't know whether there is anything analogous in other stakeholder categories for selecting representatives for representation in multistakeholder WGs etc. > So I think it is more an act of discovering and gathering than > developing. I'd suggest that after discovering and gathering should come analysis and evaluation, taking into account in particular the systemic perspective to which Baudouin has pointed us recently. Greetings, Norbert Notes on abbreviations used: IGC - Internet Governance Caucus, a civil society umbrella organization NomCom - Nomination Commission, see http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 23 12:53:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:23:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. --srs (iPad) On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >> >> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. > > I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. > > Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. > > > parminder >> >> Ian Peter >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 23 12:57:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:27:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results In-Reply-To: <514DAFC9.4000308@cafonso.ca> References: <514DAFC9.4000308@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <82E86EA7-2780-4059-BCC2-A8F65A05D261@hserus.net> Thanks for sharing, Carlos Cgi.br deserves the highest praise for what they have accomplished. Now the next challenge in brazil is the huge number of local email marketers who generally don't follow best practice and send extremely high volumes of spam. Reaching out to them and influencing change in their marketing practices is the next, and far bigger challenge. --srs (iPad) On 23-Mar-2013, at 19:06, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear people, > > [my excuses for eventual duplication] > > CGI.br has just presented a report on the results of a anti-spam campaign initiated in 2005 recommending Internet service providers to block SMTP service port 25. > > This has been a protracted effort trying to weight the pros and cons with users and the main broadband providers in the country. A CGI.br working group supported by NIC.br techies has been in a relentless pilgrimage to the ISPs to persuade them of the direct impact on spam in implementing this measure. > > The blocking does not affect email users, since webmail continues to operate normally without any reconfiguration, and users just reconfigure SMTP in their mail clients to use port 587 instead. Nearly all email service providers have already implemented secure access via port 587. > > The campaign emphasizes educating final users on the importance of this measure and on reconfiguring their mail programs to adjust to it. > > The adoption of the anti-spam measure has been slow, but from 2009 it picked up speed and the results can be seen in the graph (http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-12.htm). > > In 2009 Brazil was first in the CBL spam lists with more than one million IPs, 17% of all listed IPs. Now, it is listed in 12th place with just 2% of all listed IPs, and the curve is clearly descending. > > One very relevant point is that the entire process is based on consensus and mutual collaboration -- no need for regulations or imposition of rules. > > The awareness campaign's main sources are (in Brazilian Portuguese): > > http://antispam.br/ > http://cartilha.cert.br/ > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Mar 23 13:20:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:20:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Mailing List to Discuss Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130323182048.2f4f9253@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > WS1IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 1] > > WS2IGF2013 at igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 2] It turns out that our mailing lists use lists.igcaucus.org as domain name, correspondingly the lists are WS1IGF2013 at lists.igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 1] WS2IGF2013 at lists.igcaucus.org [To discuss Workshop Proposal 2] Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 14:32:55 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:32:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> Message-ID: I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be > welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, > unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. > > To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one > nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out > ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more > or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out > attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their > armed forces to carry out. > > So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely > essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am > extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare > “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in > this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships > style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing > uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments > based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. > > This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely > to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am > interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more > knowledgeable in this area. > > > I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how > political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open > discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also > involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has > worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that > it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally > plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global > governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, > not in the IG space. > > Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late > as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet > governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, > it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our > societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger > issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, > becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism > is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful > countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing > else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on > how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to > 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be > kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. > > > parminder > > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of > rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 > experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross > and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law > Applicable to Cyber Warfare* > analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to > state-sponsored cyberattacks. > > > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CANABARRO & BORNE & CEPIK - 2013 - MPSA - Three Controversies on Cyberwar [Final Draft] [22 MAR].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 550057 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 shailam at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 15:51:14 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1364068274.61755.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> +1 Workshop 1 +1 Workshop 2   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Call for Consensus [Draft Workshop Proposals] +1     Workshop Proposal 1 +1     Workshop Proposal 2 On Mar 20, 2013 10:56 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: Dear All, > >We have less than 24 hours to complete this Call for Consensus on the Draft Proposals. For those of you who have yet to indicate your views, please let us know asap. > >Thank you. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > > >On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear All, >> >>Firstly, thank you to all those that have been commenting on the types of Workshops and nature of Workshops that the IGC should co-host. We have compiled the Workshop templates into a single document for your ease of reading as there are multiple threads on the issues. >> >> >>There are two Draft Proposals that are attached:- >> >> >> * Workshop Proposal 1 >> * Workshop Proposal 2 >>Kindly advise us of your view on these Draft Workshop Proposals through the following means:- >> >>If you Agree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >>+ 1 Workshop Proposal 1 >> >>If you Disagree with Workshop Proposal 1 then say: >> >>-1 Workshop Proposal >> >> >>You can do the same for Workshop Proposal 2. Your views matter, so please make them known. If you have substantive comments to make on the thematics of the workshop, I would graciously ask that you please pick up on previous threads where the workshops was discussed and comment there. As much as possible, please leave this thread uncluttered so it is easier to collect responses. >> >>We would like to wrap this up by 1300 UTC on 21st March, 2013 to allow us to submit the same on time. >> >> >>Thank you. >> >>Kind Regards, >> >>Sala >>(co-coordinator) >> > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >  > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 15:58:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:58:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results In-Reply-To: <82E86EA7-2780-4059-BCC2-A8F65A05D261@hserus.net> References: <514DAFC9.4000308@cafonso.ca> <82E86EA7-2780-4059-BCC2-A8F65A05D261@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Thanks for sharing, Carlos > > Cgi.br deserves the highest praise for what they have accomplished. Now > the next challenge in brazil is the huge number of local email marketers > who generally don't follow best practice and send extremely high volumes of > spam. Reaching out to them and influencing change in their marketing > practices is the next, and far bigger challenge. > > --srs (iPad) > Indeed congratulations is indeed in order. > > On 23-Mar-2013, at 19:06, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > [my excuses for eventual duplication] > > > > CGI.br has just presented a report on the results of a anti-spam > campaign initiated in 2005 recommending Internet service providers to block > SMTP service port 25. > > > > This has been a protracted effort trying to weight the pros and cons > with users and the main broadband providers in the country. A CGI.br > working group supported by NIC.br techies has been in a relentless > pilgrimage to the ISPs to persuade them of the direct impact on spam in > implementing this measure. > > > > The blocking does not affect email users, since webmail continues to > operate normally without any reconfiguration, and users just reconfigure > SMTP in their mail clients to use port 587 instead. Nearly all email > service providers have already implemented secure access via port 587. > > > > The campaign emphasizes educating final users on the importance of this > measure and on reconfiguring their mail programs to adjust to it. > > > > The adoption of the anti-spam measure has been slow, but from 2009 it > picked up speed and the results can be seen in the graph ( > http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-12.htm). > > > > In 2009 Brazil was first in the CBL spam lists with more than one > million IPs, 17% of all listed IPs. Now, it is listed in 12th place with > just 2% of all listed IPs, and the curve is clearly descending. > > > > One very relevant point is that the entire process is based on consensus > and mutual collaboration -- no need for regulations or imposition of rules. > > > > The awareness campaign's main sources are (in Brazilian Portuguese): > > > > http://antispam.br/ > > http://cartilha.cert.br/ > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Mar 23 17:30:53 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:30:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. Ian Peter From: Diego Rafael Canabarro Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. --srs (iPad) On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. parminder Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Mar 23 18:01:44 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:01:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> Message-ID: <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> A few more links on this http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok – a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html – a three day old pre publication review. From: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. Ian Peter From: Diego Rafael Canabarro Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. --srs (iPad) On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. parminder Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 18:12:06 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:12:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> Message-ID: Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber things. There's also one thing that pisses me off. When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old salvation! It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public officials speeches. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > A few more links on this > > http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read > on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) > > > http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok– a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK > > > http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html– a three day old pre publication review. > > > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM > *To:* Diego Rafael Canabarro ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and > important points. > > My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is > immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the > Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in > this sea of immorality, and create some rules. > > Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand > cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons > too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more > are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but > the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Diego Rafael Canabarro > *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc:* parminder > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual > Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding > cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft > paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. > (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either > overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of > governmental and intergovernmental agencies. > > Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative > discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real > scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically > speaking. > > Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report > (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such > discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the > tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would >> be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, >> unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. >> >> To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one >> nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out >> ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more >> or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out >> attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their >> armed forces to carry out. >> >> So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely >> essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am >> extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare >> “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in >> this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships >> style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing >> uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments >> based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >> >> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely >> to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am >> interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more >> knowledgeable in this area. >> >> >> I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how >> political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open >> discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also >> involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has >> worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that >> it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally >> plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global >> governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, >> not in the IG space. >> >> Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as >> late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet >> governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, >> it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our >> societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger >> issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, >> becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism >> is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful >> countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing >> else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on >> how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to >> 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be >> kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Ian Peter >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of >> rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 >> experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross >> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law >> Applicable to Cyber Warfare* >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. >> >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LIBICKI - 2012 - Cyberspace is not a warfighting domain.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 343955 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 23 21:35:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:05:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> Message-ID: <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> Do you have evidence to the contrary, that the USA has actually targeted civilian facilities for cyberwarfare, diego? Or else this becomes the classic "prove that you don't beat your wife" conundrum. As for china a substantial part of their local crackers engage in everything from industrial espionage to creating fake accounts on Facebook to artificially pump up the 'likes' for a product's Facebook page. This, from teams at least nominally employed by the Chinese army for their own espionage and warfare. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/this-is-how-china-hacks-america-inside-the-mandiant-report.html --srs (iPad) On 24-Mar-2013, at 3:42, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber things. > > There's also one thing that pisses me off. > When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old salvation! > > It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public officials speeches. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> A few more links on this >> >> http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) >> >> http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok – a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK >> >> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html – a three day old pre publication review. >> >> >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM >> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. >> >> My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. >> >> Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> From: Diego Rafael Canabarro >> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Cc: parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. >> >> Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. >> >> Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. >>> >>> To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. >>> >>> So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >>>>> >>>>> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. >>>> >>>> I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. >>>> >>>> Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> From: Ian Peter >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>>>> >>>>> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >>>>> >>>>> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Diego R. Canabarro >> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >> >> -- >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >> Skype: diegocanabarro >> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Mar 23 21:42:43 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:42:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> Message-ID: Is the Mandiant Report your authoritative source? A firm interested in selling solutions for "cyber defense"? All the reports related to the Stuxnet from Symantec, Kaspersky Labs, etc. they all point out to the fact that Stuxnet, Flame and others spread through computers not "aimed" as targets. Specially in the case of Flame, loads of banks were affected. Who to trust? On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Do you have evidence to the contrary, that the USA has actually targeted > civilian facilities for cyberwarfare, diego? Or else this becomes the > classic "prove that you don't beat your wife" conundrum. > > As for china a substantial part of their local crackers engage in > everything from industrial espionage to creating fake accounts on Facebook > to artificially pump up the 'likes' for a product's Facebook page. This, > from teams at least nominally employed by the Chinese army for their own > espionage and warfare. > > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/this-is-how-china-hacks-america-inside-the-mandiant-report.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Mar-2013, at 3:42, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble > opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the > technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber > things. > > There's also one thing that pisses me off. > When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs > actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old > salvation! > > It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the > two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and > the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without > distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public > officials speeches. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> A few more links on this >> >> http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read >> on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) >> >> >> http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok– a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK >> >> >> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html– a three day old pre publication review. >> >> >> >> *From:* Ian Peter >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM >> *To:* Diego Rafael Canabarro ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and >> important points. >> >> My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is >> immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the >> Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in >> this sea of immorality, and create some rules. >> >> Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand >> cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons >> too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more >> are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but >> the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Diego Rafael Canabarro >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Cc:* parminder >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual >> Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding >> cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft >> paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. >> (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either >> overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of >> governmental and intergovernmental agencies. >> >> Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative >> discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real >> scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically >> speaking. >> >> Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report >> (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such >> discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the >> tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: >> >>> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs >>> would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have >>> not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. >>> >>> To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one >>> nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out >>> ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more >>> or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out >>> attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their >>> armed forces to carry out. >>> >>> So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely >>> essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am >>> extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare >>> “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in >>> this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships >>> style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing >>> uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments >>> based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >>> >>> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely >>> to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am >>> interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more >>> knowledgeable in this area. >>> >>> >>> I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how >>> political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open >>> discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also >>> involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has >>> worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that >>> it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally >>> plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global >>> governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, >>> not in the IG space. >>> >>> Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as >>> late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet >>> governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, >>> it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our >>> societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger >>> issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, >>> becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism >>> is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful >>> countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing >>> else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on >>> how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to >>> 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be >>> kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> *From:* Ian Peter >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>> >>> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >>> >>> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set >>> of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by >>> 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross >>> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law >>> Applicable to Cyber Warfare* >>> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to >>> state-sponsored cyberattacks. >>> >>> >>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Diego R. Canabarro >> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >> >> -- >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >> Skype: diegocanabarro >> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >> -- >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Mar 23 21:46:29 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:46:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, I would expect anything is possible from a country that did Hiroshima, but have no direct answers to your questions. As for pumping up likes on Facebook, that is called marketing and is employed by just about every company I can think of. Surprised you equate it with cyberwarfare (or is it only when Chinese do it it is cyberwarfare?) From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Diego Rafael Canabarro Cc: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Do you have evidence to the contrary, that the USA has actually targeted civilian facilities for cyberwarfare, diego? Or else this becomes the classic "prove that you don't beat your wife" conundrum. As for china a substantial part of their local crackers engage in everything from industrial espionage to creating fake accounts on Facebook to artificially pump up the 'likes' for a product's Facebook page. This, from teams at least nominally employed by the Chinese army for their own espionage and warfare. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/this-is-how-china-hacks-america-inside-the-mandiant-report.html --srs (iPad) On 24-Mar-2013, at 3:42, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber things. There's also one thing that pisses me off. When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old salvation! It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public officials speeches. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: A few more links on this http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok – a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html – a three day old pre publication review. From: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. Ian Peter From: Diego Rafael Canabarro Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. --srs (iPad) On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. parminder Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 23 21:55:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:25:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> Message-ID: You are comparing one private sector report to another. :) In stuxnet and flame they appeared to be highly targeted initially, with the added nuisance that whoever created them grossly overestimated their ability to contain its spread and not allow it to escape into the wild. As for china, there is plenty of added evidence of targeted attacks from there, including against civil society groups and religious organizations that it peoscribes, chinese people prosecuted internationally for espionage etc. The mandiant report was nothing particularly new from the standpoint of knowing that china does this. The interesting part there was tracing and exposing specific individuals. --srs (iPad) On 24-Mar-2013, at 7:12, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Is the Mandiant Report your authoritative source? A firm interested in selling solutions for "cyber defense"? All the reports related to the Stuxnet from Symantec, Kaspersky Labs, etc. they all point out to the fact that Stuxnet, Flame and others spread through computers not "aimed" as targets. Specially in the case of Flame, loads of banks were affected. > > Who to trust? > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Do you have evidence to the contrary, that the USA has actually targeted civilian facilities for cyberwarfare, diego? Or else this becomes the classic "prove that you don't beat your wife" conundrum. >> >> As for china a substantial part of their local crackers engage in everything from industrial espionage to creating fake accounts on Facebook to artificially pump up the 'likes' for a product's Facebook page. This, from teams at least nominally employed by the Chinese army for their own espionage and warfare. >> >> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/this-is-how-china-hacks-america-inside-the-mandiant-report.html >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 24-Mar-2013, at 3:42, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >>> Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber things. >>> >>> There's also one thing that pisses me off. >>> When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old salvation! >>> >>> It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public officials speeches. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> A few more links on this >>>> >>>> http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) >>>> >>>> http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok – a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK >>>> >>>> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html – a three day old pre publication review. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM >>>> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. >>>> >>>> My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. >>>> >>>> Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> From: Diego Rafael Canabarro >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> Cc: parminder >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>>> >>>> I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. >>>> >>>> Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. >>>> >>>> Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. >>>>> >>>>> To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. >>>>> >>>>> So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. >>>>>> >>>>>> I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Ian Peter >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Diego R. Canabarro >>>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >>>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >>>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >>>> Skype: diegocanabarro >>>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >>>> -- >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Diego R. Canabarro >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >>> >>> -- >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >>> Skype: diegocanabarro >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >>> -- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 23 21:58:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:28:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <6B27E4EE52214C57BC412D11CBB8F193@Toshiba> <514D727D.3010100@itforchange.net> <2BAA28E7-1CC2-4DCB-A38E-0455949797C4@hserus.net> <58E2B57A71974591AAB113F17D3BE1D7@Toshiba> <08F9F450-A70D-46D2-8F65-7B164C59BC58@hserus.net> Message-ID: <95E6678A-4197-4270-ADB1-AD9821AD2A2B@hserus.net> I am not equating it with cyber warfare. It is petty theft the way it is done here .. Creating bogus fb accounts is not recognized as a legitimate marketing practice but that's about it. It is just remarkable that the same people were involved in both these activities, like say an armed bank robber that occasionally takes coins out of a blind beggars bowl. --srs (iPad) On 24-Mar-2013, at 7:16, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Suresh, > > I would expect anything is possible from a country that did Hiroshima, but have no direct answers to your questions. > > As for pumping up likes on Facebook, that is called marketing and is employed by just about every company I can think of. Surprised you equate it with cyberwarfare (or is it only when Chinese do it it is cyberwarfare?) > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > Do you have evidence to the contrary, that the USA has actually targeted civilian facilities for cyberwarfare, diego? Or else this becomes the classic "prove that you don't beat your wife" conundrum. > > As for china a substantial part of their local crackers engage in everything from industrial espionage to creating fake accounts on Facebook to artificially pump up the 'likes' for a product's Facebook page. This, from teams at least nominally employed by the Chinese army for their own espionage and warfare. > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/this-is-how-china-hacks-america-inside-the-mandiant-report.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Mar-2013, at 3:42, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > >> Just to add to that, I attach you one of the best articles in my humble opinion. Mostly, because it is one of the few that enters the technicalities of cyberspace to show how disguised are responses to cyber things. >> >> There's also one thing that pisses me off. >> When China allegedly hacks the US, that's evil. When the US performs actions against countries in the Middle East, it is part of the good old salvation! >> >> It is interesting to observe some commentators: the difference between the two countries would be that "the US only targets military facilities, and the bloody Chinese target civilian and military systems without distinction." Evidence for that? Private sector reports and public officials speeches. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> A few more links on this >>> >>> http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html – the full 215 page document can be read on line here (the main download site appears to be jammed) >>> >>> http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyberwarfare/21945/rules-cyberwarfare-manual-hacktivists-can-be-killed-hacking-pacemakers-may-be-ok – a blog that includes the suggestion that hacking pacemakers is probably OK >>> >>> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/first-cyber-war-manual-released-20130320-2gegk.html – a three day old pre publication review. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:30 AM >>> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>> >>> Thanks for sharing that paper Diego – you raise some interesting and important points. >>> >>> My own personal approach to this is cyber-quaker - all cyberwarfare is immoral. However I appreciate and support interventions like those of the Red Cross that suggest we try to at least stem the worst of behaviours in this sea of immorality, and create some rules. >>> >>> Tallinn falls a long way short because it doesnt understand cyber-infrastructure and its inter-connectedness. Lots of other reasons too, and as Parminder points out this is the powerful voices and many more are not being heard or considered. Not sure of the way forward here, but the Tallinn approach involves significant human rights issues as you say.. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> From: Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:32 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Cc: parminder >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >>> >>> I would like to share a paper which is be presented at the MPSA Annual Convention. We aim at evaluating three widespread claims surrounding cyberwarfare. And we briefly evaluate the case of Brazil. As it is a draft paper, please, feel free to add to that as much as you deem necessary. (paper attached) Intellectual production on the field is either overwhelmingly carried by (or performed in replication of) reports of governmental and intergovernmental agencies. >>> >>> Maybe the greatest task for civil society is to push a qualitative discussion of the issue of agency on cyberspace, as well as of the real scope of different sorts of activities. Technically and politically speaking. >>> >>> Despite of my strong disagreement with great part of the Tallin Report (and with NATO approach as a whole), it is really important to have such discussions conducted in an open manner. Specially because some of the tenets of cybersecurity orthodoxy endanger loads of fundamental rights. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> If civil society can speak knowledgeably in this area, its inputs would be welcomed in a multitude of fora engaged on this issue. I have not, unfortunately, seen much of that on this list at any rate. >>>> >>>> To answer Ian's comment, there is a distressing trend in more than one nation to use non state actors (including criminal botmasters) to carry out ddos attacks and break into foreign networks for espionage, this is more or less similar to other nations using jehadis and mujahideen to carry out attacks that would be politically and strategically infeasible for their armed forces to carry out. >>>> >>>> So while some of the models could do with an update, it is absolutely essential that this practice be internationally recognized as unacceptable. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 23-Mar-2013, at 14:44, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 23 March 2013 11:43 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>> I just read through the principles outlined in this document and am extremely concerned at some of the implications of extending normal warfare “principles” to cyber infrastructure, attempts to define territoriality in this space, and some of the concepts that applied in guns and warships style conflicts being extended into cyberspace – like combatants wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. And many other arguments based on 1940s international law that really should not apply. >>>>>> >>>>>> This, unfortunately, is a document from “credible” sources and is likely to have impact on NATO thinking. Therefore it is extremely concerning. I am interested in the reactions of people on this list who are more knowledgeable in this area. >>>>> >>>>> I dont claim to be more knowledgeable, but from the little I know how political affairs get conducted: it is best to have larger, more open discussions on such issues, where the less powerful countries are also involved. While some were always more equal then others, the trend has worsened in the IG space, where it is also almost normatively accepted that it is ok that the game be played among the biggies. Civil society normally plays the normative and democracy-seeking role, and expanding global governance spaces to include smaller countries equally, but regrettably, not in the IG space. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, and there have been some strange comments in this regard as late as in the last few day - lets understand and accept that Internet governance is not about some rather insignificant issue of CIRs management, it is about so many much bigger issues, very central to the future of our societies. Again, civil society has a big role in defining this larger issue-scape rather than digging our collective head in the CIR sands, becuase it gives us a very good and saleable slogan of 'mutistakeholderism is sought to be replaced by UN inter-gov-ism'. And the most powerful countires want us to keep using this slogan exclusively and do nothing else. In all other IG areas, the strong control of Northern governments on how our future is evolving is so very clear that is does not admit to 'MSism being replaced by UNism" slogan, and thus civil society should be kept away from grasping and taking up these more important other IG issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Ian Peter >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:40 PM >>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 24 02:34:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:04:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <46B9B366-7F78-44B4-A246-AF000DD0F692@hserus.net> Message-ID: <514E9E58.3020400@itforchange.net> David, Very much agree. The purpose of MSism (multistakeholderism) should first be clear (because the method also depends on that) - basically to 'make public policy' or to obtain greater engagement of all affected parties in development of public policy. The two are different things. However, and I have raised this question often here, those who most solidly profess MSism have generally not been forthcoming in this matter. (And to clarify, 'technical policy making' within narrow pulbic policy defined remits is to be seen as different from larger, substantive public policy making.) Only after we know about the purpose can we come to methods. But as you have seen from the recent conversations, there is reluctance to discuss even the 'methods' by upholders of IG variety of MSism. And yes, democratic ideals and norms remain the ulitimate test to evaluate both the purpose and methods. parminder On Saturday 23 March 2013 08:26 PM, David Allen wrote: > This was put forward as basis to specify the mission: > > On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM > >> ... >> the lack of clear principles on methodology >> ... > > Method is always important - but the discussion has been about > purpose. Before method. > > For a reason. A folksy saying reminds: "If we don't know where we > are going, any road will take us there ..." > > First, we establish purpose. Only after purpose is clear, then method > may figure out how we get to that objective. Otherwise, ... > > > The second blogpost goes straight to the question of purpose. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/ > > The question, in a nutshell, to define purpose: What role may MS > possibly have in a democracy? > > Certainly not MS as a replacement - not, as for instance, the stance > of the US exiting WCIT, in Kramer's sign-off. > > MS, not as the policy-making mechanism. > > Rather - perhaps - as a means toward greater engagement, within a > democracy, as that second blogpost discusses. > > Policy is set by, and reserved to, democratic means. > > > With, then, perhaps some clarity on purpose for MS - method can become > the topic. > > ______ > > > The eventual discussion of method, premature now, found fodder - > nonetheless - in the below: > > So, let's say it again: > > “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 > people in the entire world …" > > Sizes of the stakeholder groups are most starkly lopsided. Their > constituencies, T/A compared with the other three. Different by a > number of orders of magnitude. T/A is in the thousands. CS / > business / governments are in the hundreds of millions, billions. > > Starting with the facts is the first step. > > Then, after the stark lopsidedness, representation. How would these > three, or four, tribes represent each of their groups? Who will? > > The standard: Hard-won democratic governance has developed strenuous > procedures for elections. In cases - for an example - where a society > has yet to learn / adopt suitable procedures, international observers > arrive and oversee election processes. To insure fair representation. > > Then, to suppose representation via a club of 'usual suspects,' > perhaps three or four times a few dozen - a hundred or so in total - > points at some of the worst of tribal outcomes. Clubby, elitist > control of power, where mutual back-scratching proscribes serious > critical analysis. Where interests served become private and > individual, not the public interest. Such has been, across history, > the path to some of the most despised outcomes. > > David > > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:56 PM: > >> Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects >> from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each. >> >> >> On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen >>> >> > wrote: >>>> The T/A definition from its focal point: >>>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical >>>> organizations/people who run it." >>>> >>>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting. >>> >>> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable >>> candidates would be closer to 30-40. >>> >>> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well. >>> >>> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov >>> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it >>> were more than 30-40 from each SG. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 24 03:03:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:33:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> Message-ID: <514EA52B.1060505@itforchange.net> Avri I tried to begin putting up some real principles and guidelines for civil society representatives selection. They were written informally, and can do with a lot of corrections. More substantive changes can also be introduced. So please make the required changes or propose a new starting point for developing such guidelines. What you have done instead is simply to employ a lens of ascribing, in your own words, a 'gotcha mentality' to my efforts. And I take exception to it. But since you made that ascription, let me also say that I remain rather amused as well as distressed by the various efforts made here which can be read as aimed at safe-guarding 'power' and the 'powerful' - even if only within MS (multistakeholder) processes. This is antithetical to both democractic norms and civil society values. Process guidelines that are aimed at checking abuse of power have to be written in manner that can always be called for a 'gotcha mentality'. Read for instance civil services code of conducts in most countries. One can easily say that they are written by rather suspicious-minded people. But they are needed to be written in the manner they are written to safeguard public interest. Parliamentary processes are also based on close and thorough questioning of those who exercise power. Unfortunately, government civil servants and politicians are not the only ones whose conduct can hurt public interest. There is this very problematic thing of seeing 'us of the MS world' as the 'good people' and other public actors as bad; and therefore 'we' do not need accountability processes. parminder On Saturday 23 March 2013 07:10 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 Mar 2013, at 04:56, parminder wrote: > >> It is important we develop some principles for civil society representation and selections. > Fair enough. > >> And here I will like to start with top level issue highlighted in Michael's list of questions about the 'role of the focal point'. Frequently, based on their recognised work and presence in the area, some CS individuals/ organisations are asked by 'authorities' to provide civil society representatives as speakers, members of WGs and committees and so on. We should have clear principles and guidelines for how anyone who is given such a responsibility should carry it out. > Though I would start by looking at some of the principles that have been used by those selected as focal points over the years. I think that generally the choices made by these focal points have been done in a principled manner, so we may already have a set of principles. They just aren't gathered in one place as a reference or guideline. > > So I think it is more an act of discovering and gathering than developing. > >> Along with other principles for representation and selection, we can get a set of guidelines and principles for 'focal points' adopted by the IGC as a resolution, and then get then perhaps also adopted by other CS networks in the area and have these principles well documented and publicized so that everyone in the future do goes by them. That would be an important tangible step forward. > As long as we don't go beyond guidelines to rules. Each of the situations that call for a focal point to take some action will be different. One of the problems with principles and guidelines is they sometimes become stuck as rules that allow no deviation and are used as weapons against the focal point. > >> I suggest some such principles and guidelines for 'focal points'. >> >> Whenever anyone or any organisation is given the role of 'focal point' (or a similar role by another name), such a role needs to be seen as a responsibility to be taken on the behalf of civil society, and not as a privilege. > fair enough. > >> Being put into any such role -whatever be the communication from the concerned authorities - should be seen as given the duty to 'organise a selection process' and not taken as the privilege 'do the selection'. > That depends. If a speaker is needed in an hour, that process might need to be quite abbreviated and may indeed look like a selection. And sometimes, even if is look more like a selection, that does not mean that one is doing it is considering it a privilege, but rather that they are accepting a responsibility to their best of behalf of CS and accepting the reality that they may be punished by CS, no matter what they do.. > >> The communication about being given such a role should be immediately publicised among all civil society networks. > In principle I agree. But what does 'immediately' mean? Does it mean one gets berated if someone else published the notification before the focal point has the chance to do so? > > Words like 'immediately' are useful for the gotcha mentality that makes sure that no matter what someone in a focal position does it is open to righteous attack. > >> Their may be special circumstances (mostly, shortage of time) that do not allow the possibility of organising an ideal selection process (basic principles of which are provided elsewhere), in which case some ad hoc measures may be used (some principles/ guidelines for which are also provided separately), which should however be minimal and reasons thereof fully accounted for. Shortage of time should not be used as an excuse to avoid organising all aspects of an 'appropriate selection process'. As much of the ideal selection process as possible should be organised, and as little of it as absolutely required should may replaced by ad hoc process(es). > While I recognize that one should have reasons for deviating from accepted practice, to call it an excuse is once again to set the focal point up for an attack. > >> Any ad hoc measures obviously leave some matters to the discretion of the concerned person/ organisation. They should however be fully willing and available to have them debated and to defend them. For this purpose, all information about such ad hoc matters should be made public, unless clear reasons against such transparency can be provided. Even for such ad hoc measures, some basic self-guidelines should be developed and documented. While the focal point needs to fully justify resorting to any and every ad hoc process, all information about them in any case should be made publicly available so that others can form an independent opinion on them. > Again: ' to defend'. why not 'to explain'. The presumption seems to be that the focal point will do something wrong and will be the target of attack. Why build this notion into the principles and guidelines? Yes, they should expect questions about what they do, but to have it defined from the start as a need 'to defend' seems to put the process on the wrong footing as an adversarial process. > > What 'to any and every' ad-hoc process mean? To me it looks like yet another way to setup the focal point for criticism. I can already hear "You forgot to mention xyz - you are a bad focal point" in the future if we adopt principles and guidelines with such terms and attitudes. > >> Maybe we can also add something to the effect that: >> >> Civil society has strong traditions of a deliberative culture, and extreme transparency and accountability. In any post -selections discussion it is but normal that some may not agree with some processes that were employed, especially if some ad hoc arrangements were involved as per above. Any focal point that would have chosen would and should be strong enough to stand such critical comments and provide justification from its side, and stand by it. While undue personalised comments should not be made in such discussions (and will not be accepted in any discussions), it is also important that genuine engagement, even criticism, of the process should not be construed as personal criticism or targeting. > While anyone who does anything in CS needs thick skin, especially on the IGC, I think building in a notion of there being 'due personalized comments' (assuming the word undue implies a notion of due) is problematic. I read this as warning any focal point who dares accept such responsibility that they will need to run the gauntlet. Not a good way to start in my opinion. > >> There are other issues but well, the above is one set. More later. > One thing that worries me in this note and in this conversation taken at this point is that some may decide that there is implied criticism of the process that was used in CS this time around. I think the relatively established processes, though it had its adhoc moments, followed by IGC and the crafted for purpose process followed by Anriette where both very well done and are above all forms of criticism other than nitpicking. I think they make good exemplars. > > And although I have already sent thanks to both personally, I want to acknowledge here how honored I was to be picked in both of these processes for candidacy. > > Thanks > > avri > > > - CS - Civil Society > - Run the gauntlet - A form of medieval punishment (still used in various secret societies today) where a person would need to run between two lines of knightly who took their opportunity to beat you as you ran by. Generally taken today to mean "To go through a series of criticisms or harsh treatments at the hands of one's detractors." > - Gotcha mentality - Basically a form of argument where a speaker sets up situations and questions in such a way that it becomes impossible for a respondent to respond without fueling an responding attack. Good examples of this can be seen in the interrogative modes of conversation used by groups such as police forces, regulators and senate committees. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 24 11:24:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:24:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <514EA52B.1060505@itforchange.net> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> <514EA52B.1060505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2D1D1900-09F1-4D99-A866-E6FB0475E79C@acm.org> On 24 Mar 2013, at 03:03, parminder wrote: > > I tried to begin putting up some real principles and guidelines for civil society representatives selection. They were written informally, and can do with a lot of corrections. More substantive changes can also be introduced. So please make the required changes or propose a new starting point for developing such guidelines. I did. In fact Norbert took me up on my call, to first do an analysis of what we have been doing that looks like, for the most part it is working. He went further and suggested a review of the Nomcom practices and doing some analysis, perhaps gap analysis (my words not his). For the rest, I accepted that you were making some fair points, but mentioned that I was uncomfortable in the direction you were heading for reasons I gave. 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 pouzin at well.com Sun Mar 24 12:37:52 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:37:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of > rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 > experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross > and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law > Applicable to Cyber Warfare* > analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to > state-sponsored cyberattacks. > > > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > > - - - > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. Some more frightening documents on real war: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Mar 24 12:59:57 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:59:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: <514F310D.3010001@cafonso.ca> E.g, Camp Delta (a.k.a. Guantánamo) is going through a full-fledged hunger strike for more than 45 days now -- so far 26 inmates officially (US count) adhered to it, but The US-based Center for Constitutional Rights estimates up to 130 inmates are involved in the protest. Inmates being force-fed and so on (*). This will be the culmination of a human rights tragedy which goes (so far) unpunished, practiced by the self-attributed greatest democracy on Earth. People there have nothing to lose except their (now miserable) lives. The US gov, on the contrary, will be heavily impacted by the consequences of this. But the belief in a war-oriented policy of human rights (meaning human rights will always be subsidiary to any other national priority) has consequences, terrible consequences. And now they promise to start killing hackers. Go figure... --c.a. (*) http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-399/ On 03/24/2013 01:37 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of >> rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 >> experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross >> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law >> Applicable to Cyber Warfare* >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. >> >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> >> - - - >> > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives > belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or > violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through > occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language > to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell > (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism > special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism > and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 13:08:13 2013 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:08:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Dr. POUZIN A 302 page manual for "cyber warfare" I'm impressed. I only have one problem: cyber warfare is a misnomer. *War*'s aim is "regime change" - territorial occupation or so. It was about conquest of* immovable property*. Wars in pre-industrial societies were affairs among extractive elites - hence subject to rules. *Raids*, however, to rob movable* property*, were never the object of international rules. A raider was strung up, and that was that. The problem the US has, after 9/11, was that they were trying to apply the rules of war to a raid. Aldo On 24 March 2013 17:37, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of >> rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 >> experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross >> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law >> Applicable to Cyber Warfare* >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. >> >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> >> - - - >> > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives > belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or > violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through > occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language > to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell > (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism > special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism > and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 24 14:29:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:29:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] WS1 submitted Message-ID: <20130324192921.3c74456b@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all FYI, the preliminary workshop proposal for workshop 1 has been submitted. (Ian has done this on behalf of the IGC.) Greetings, Norbert P.S. If further IGC members and/or other civil society people are interested in joining one or both of our mailing list for sharing and discussing thoughts related to the IGC workshop plans, for the purpose of feeding your ideas and/or concerns into the workshop planning processes, as Sala wrote you can simply let coordinators at igcaucus.org know and we'll add you. > --snip---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1. Workshop working title (max 60 characters): > > MS selection processes: Accountability and transparency > > 2. Concise description of broader thematic area of interest > (max 500 characters): > > From lessons learnt to good practice: > > It is intended that the workshop will be jointly convened by the > three non-governmental stakeholder groups in the IGF and used to > share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good > practice approaches on accountability and transparency. We could > also discuss the composition of these constituency groups, > including ambiguity of definition, and the challenges that arise at > times from overlaps between stakeholder categories. > > > 3. Concise description of specific issues or policy questions > to be addressed (max 500 characters): > > * What has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder groups > are defined and represented? > > * What would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and > inclusion in such processes? (What are possible principles to > work from?) > > 4. Indication of workshop format: > > other > > An appropriate format is yet to be determined. But drawing on past > experiences, the workshop hopes to be able to distill > principles/guidelines for future practice, which will be shared with > appropriate fora. This workshop has been developed with the > involvement of the focal points for the selection processes for the > CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation for business, civil > society, and technical and academic stakeholder groups, all of whom > will be involved in its deliberations. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Mar 24 14:58:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:58:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <514F310D.3010001@cafonso.ca> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <514F310D.3010001@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20130324195833.623bcba9@quill.bollow.ch> It is in this regard also significant to note the lack of an accepted (in the sense of getting yourself lumped into the same bucket as "terrorists" by the US government) form of online protest in a way that would be visible to visitors of an online entity. Greetings, Norbert Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > E.g, Camp Delta (a.k.a. Guantánamo) is going through a full-fledged > hunger strike for more than 45 days now -- so far 26 inmates > officially (US count) adhered to it, but The US-based Center for > Constitutional Rights estimates up to 130 inmates are involved in the > protest. Inmates being force-fed and so on (*). This will be the > culmination of a human rights tragedy which goes (so far) unpunished, > practiced by the self-attributed greatest democracy on Earth. > > People there have nothing to lose except their (now miserable) lives. > The US gov, on the contrary, will be heavily impacted by the > consequences of this. But the belief in a war-oriented policy of > human rights (meaning human rights will always be subsidiary to any > other national priority) has consequences, terrible consequences. > > And now they promise to start killing hackers. Go figure... > > --c.a. > > (*) http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-399/ > > On 03/24/2013 01:37 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: > > > >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > >> > >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a > >> set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be > >> conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the > >> International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, > >> the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber > >> Warfare* > >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to > >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. > >> > >> > >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > >> > >> - - - > >> > > > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for > > legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. > > Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the > > capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much > > influence, except through occasional media power. > > > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized > > language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was > > anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor > > camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), > > maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary > > rendition (torture), inter alia. > > > > Louis > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 24 16:29:46 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:29:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Louis, re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review list, unsure myself how they worked together. But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new international law for cyber warfare. Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. Lee PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare - - - Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. Some more frightening documents on real war: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Mar 24 16:38:25 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:38:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Lee – I think there might be a lot we can do. I think there is a strong argument for a declaration of an Internet war free zone of sorts – I think of Swiss neutrality, non-proliferation treaties, nuclear weapon free zones, etc. I think a compelling argument can be made that cyberwarfare with its inability to localise damage can be seen to be something we should not contemplate. We may not be able to stop it, but we may be able to have it declared illegal or immoral. That would be a good first step. Ian Peter From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) ; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Louis, re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review list, unsure myself how they worked together. But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new international law for cyber warfare. Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. Lee PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare - - - Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. Some more frightening documents on real war: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 17:58:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:58:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax Message-ID: Dear All, It was not that long ago when we were discussing Internet Sales Tax and differing treatments by the OECD members and the US. There are further developments within the US that are interesting with regard to internet sales tax. Two this end, here are two separate pieces on it: - http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/24/26-republicans-vote-for-internet-sales-tax/ - An opinion piece on the Market Place Fairness Act, see: http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/18/the-marketplace-fairness-act-is-more-unfair-than-status-quo/ *Brief Summary on the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013* The S.336 Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentine's day, 2013 and sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi [R-WY] There are 28 co-sponsors (21D, 6R, 1I). You can track the Bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s336 There is a prognosis that the Bill might not get past the Committee and 0% chance of getting enacted. The H.R.684: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentines's day, 2013 and sponsored by US Rep. Steve Womack [R-AR3] had 47 cosponsors (25D, 22R). There is a prognosis that it has a 28% chance of getting past the committee and 11% chance of getting enacted. You can track the Bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr684 Kind Regards, Sala -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 24 21:33:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:03:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <13d9f2d9f0c.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> We can make an effort to rewrite sections of the tallinn manual and publish an alternative version or maybe a critical edition of sorts to make these clear I expect The difficulty both with the tallinn manual and in this one is that both aren't binding and only those countries that already follow best practice will make any effort to change because of either or both the tallinn manual and our inputs (of course assuming they are produced and get the same level of attention) --srs (htc one x) On 25 March 2013 2:08:25 AM "Ian Peter" wrote: > I agree with Lee – I think there might be a lot we can do. > > I think there is a strong argument for a declaration of an Internet war > free zone of sorts – I think of Swiss neutrality, non-proliferation > treaties, nuclear weapon free zones, etc. I think a compelling argument > can be made that cyberwarfare with its inability to localise damage can > be seen to be something we should not contemplate. We may not be able > to stop it, but we may be able to have it declared illegal or immoral. > That would be a good first step. > > Ian Peter > > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) ; Ian Peter > Subject: RE: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > Louis, > > re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while the > docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review list, > unsure myself how they worked together. > > But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence > modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds > like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming we > don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. > > Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public > naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of > People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government > and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for > themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new > international law for cyber warfare. > > Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal > framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. > > But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all > play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. > > Lee > > PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin > (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set > of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. > Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee > of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the > International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of > conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. > > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > > - - - > > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. > Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the > capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much > influence, except through occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized > language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated > by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp > (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism > reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition > (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 24 21:41:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:11:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: <13d9f348c9c.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> War is also about reducing or softening up your enemy's critical information infrastructure as a precursor to an actual attack by your armed forces Cyber warfare is a low level, asymmetrical and plausibly deniable method to accomplish this, much like some countries use non state actors to carry out a proxy war against their enemies --srs (htc one x) On 24 March 2013 10:38:13 PM Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Dear Dr. POUZIN > > A 302 page manual for "cyber warfare" > I'm impressed. > > I only have one problem: cyber warfare is a misnomer. > > *War*'s aim is "regime change" - territorial occupation or so. It was about > conquest of* immovable property*. > Wars in pre-industrial societies were affairs among extractive elites - > hence subject to rules. > > *Raids*, however, to rob movable* property*, were never the object of > international rules. A raider was strung up, and that was that. > The problem the US has, after 9/11, was that they were trying to apply the > rules of war to a raid. > > Aldo > > > On 24 March 2013 17:37, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > >> > >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of > >> rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 > >> experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross > >> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law > >> Applicable to Cyber > Warfare* > >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to > >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. > >> > >> > >> > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > >> > >> - - - > >> > > > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives > > belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or > > violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through > > occasional media power. > > > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language > > to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell > > (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism > > special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism > > and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. > > > > Louis > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 24 21:51:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:21:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> Message-ID: <13d9f3db426.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Wonderful. You have now compared bush and Obama to as choice a collection of genocidal dictators as you can find and managed to throw in the now obligatory big brother comparison as well Purely as a history lesson to you, Louis, concentration camps started as British internment camps for the boer people during the boer war. Hitler extended the concept and also introduced death camps. The Soviet (and before them, Tsarist) and Chinese labor camps were a cheap way for them to get large amounts of convict labor to mine gold, build highways and rail lines etc in resource rich areas with inhospitable weather. So a subtle distinction and one that wouldn't matter much to the victims of either regime, but one that you might bear in mind when scattering disagreeable analogies around like confetti --srs (htc one x) On 24 March 2013 10:07:52 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > > > > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of > > rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 > > experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross > > and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law > > Applicable to Cyber > Warfare* > > analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to > > state-sponsored cyberattacks. > > > > > > > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > > > > - - - > > > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives > belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or > violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through > occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language > to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell > (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism > special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism > and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. > > Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Mar 24 23:59:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:29:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Anyone explain this strange texting phenomena? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Three possibilities: 1. Tampering. 2. A system glitch; like a language/syntax parser (thats used to filter spammy words or stuff like that) malfunction (unless you had words they wanted to catch, in which case it was working perfectly) 3. In some cases (I've see this happen) the system level check will flag the message, and one of the employees then re-words the indicated message fragment to seem less threatening - some of my very lovely texts to wifey were altered this way and made no sense when she received ;-( Do see if this happens again with the same text - the telecomm's call centre may not have an answer (as in they may not even know about this) so no reason to expect anything from them. It's a rare occurance though (happened twice during my last 8 years with vodafone) -C On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > I recently had a strange experience when a person I texted returned the > text via forward after becoming really confused as to what I meant. I was > very surprised because the text received was not the same words as the text > I sent and still had in my outbox! About half of the words matched > precisely and the other half (the first half or so) was an entirely > unrelated couple sentences that I did not draft recently and tend to think > I never drafted at any point in time (though I am not 100% sure that I > didn't draft it 2 or more months ago). > > So I sent a text of four sentences but the first two sentences were > omitted in what was received and they were replaced by two sentences that I > certainly never drafted in the last 2 months and perhaps are not my writing > at all. > > I realize that there are packets here and messages can be split up and > thus arrive occasionally in jumbled orders or long delays also. But it > seems to me to violate the "laws" of the "internet" (er, texting) for a > message to NOT be split into packets but somehow have unrelated language > substituted for what is probably the first packet of a two packet text, > especially when its quite likely the substituted two sentences are > something I never wrote to anybody at any time, and if I did write those > substituted sentences it could only have been over 2 months ago and to a > Different person than the one who received the confusing text from me, with > only the second half of it correct. > > Whatever went on here AMOUNTS to mail tampering, even though likely no > intent to tamper, because after I sent a message, a very different message > was received shortly thereafter. This transmission was between two Samsung > Galaxy phones on Verizon share everything plan, in case that helps. Who > wants to "share" this way? > > Anybody have any ideas how this can happen? It certainly undermines the > reliability of written texts as communication or as evidence if what you > sent is not what is received and the words are half different and the > substituted words don't come from any recent traffic of mine or the person > I texted with. Thanks for any responded here or offline. > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 25 00:22:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:52:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Anyone explain this strange texting phenomena? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or something that splits the sms into fragments and transmits / reassembles it. --srs (iPad) On 25-Mar-2013, at 9:29, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Three possibilities: > > 1. Tampering. > 2. A system glitch; like a language/syntax parser (thats used to filter spammy words or stuff like that) malfunction (unless you had words they wanted to catch, in which case it was working perfectly) > 3. In some cases (I've see this happen) the system level check will flag the message, and one of the employees then re-words the indicated message fragment to seem less threatening - some of my very lovely texts to wifey were altered this way and made no sense when she received ;-( > > Do see if this happens again with the same text - the telecomm's call centre may not have an answer (as in they may not even know about this) so no reason to expect anything from them. It's a rare occurance though (happened twice during my last 8 years with vodafone) > > -C > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> I recently had a strange experience when a person I texted returned the text via forward after becoming really confused as to what I meant. I was very surprised because the text received was not the same words as the text I sent and still had in my outbox! About half of the words matched precisely and the other half (the first half or so) was an entirely unrelated couple sentences that I did not draft recently and tend to think I never drafted at any point in time (though I am not 100% sure that I didn't draft it 2 or more months ago). >> >> So I sent a text of four sentences but the first two sentences were omitted in what was received and they were replaced by two sentences that I certainly never drafted in the last 2 months and perhaps are not my writing at all. >> >> I realize that there are packets here and messages can be split up and thus arrive occasionally in jumbled orders or long delays also. But it seems to me to violate the "laws" of the "internet" (er, texting) for a message to NOT be split into packets but somehow have unrelated language substituted for what is probably the first packet of a two packet text, especially when its quite likely the substituted two sentences are something I never wrote to anybody at any time, and if I did write those substituted sentences it could only have been over 2 months ago and to a Different person than the one who received the confusing text from me, with only the second half of it correct. >> >> Whatever went on here AMOUNTS to mail tampering, even though likely no intent to tamper, because after I sent a message, a very different message was received shortly thereafter. This transmission was between two Samsung Galaxy phones on Verizon share everything plan, in case that helps. Who wants to "share" this way? >> >> Anybody have any ideas how this can happen? It certainly undermines the reliability of written texts as communication or as evidence if what you sent is not what is received and the words are half different and the substituted words don't come from any recent traffic of mine or the person I texted with. Thanks for any responded here or offline. >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 00:40:46 2013 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:40:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <13d9f3db426.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <13d9f3db426.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Ian and Diego, thanks for sharing these documents for all members of this list. Since 2008 I've been studying and writing about the issues Networking Centric Warfare and Cyberwarfare: - Global Internet Governance: The Representation of country toponyms in cyberspace - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-151b.htm I've read several articles written by the DoD’s Command and Control Research Program (CCRP). Currently I'm interested in the area of Geography of Cyberspace by themes of geopolitics and sovereignty in cyberspace: - Interview to News Agency of Universidad Nacional de Colombia - http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/hay-que-democratizar-la-internet.html - National states, sovereignty and regulation of the Internet - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-418/sn-418-63.htm The "Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" is a very important book for the continuation of studies that has been developing. With respect to proposal "to publish an alternative version ...", the Foreign Policy Scholars at Brookings and Peter W. Singer and Thomas Wright wrote recently a Book and Memorandum to the President: - Big Bets, Black Swans: a Presidential Briefing Book - Policy Recommendations for President Obama’s Second Term - http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/1/big%20bets%20black%20swans/big%20bets%20and%20black%20swans%20a%20presidential%20briefing%20book.pdf - "An Obama Doctrine on New Rules of War" - http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/an-obama-doctrine-on-new-rules-of-war 2013/3/24 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Wonderful. You have now compared bush and Obama to as choice a > collection of genocidal dictators as you can find and managed to throw in > the now obligatory big brother comparison as well > > Purely as a history lesson to you, Louis, concentration camps started as > British internment camps for the boer people during the boer war. Hitler > extended the concept and also introduced death camps. > > The Soviet (and before them, Tsarist) and Chinese labor camps were a cheap > way for them to get large amounts of convict labor to mine gold, build > highways and rail lines etc in resource rich areas with inhospitable > weather. So a subtle distinction and one that wouldn't matter much to the > victims of either regime, but one that you might bear in mind when > scattering disagreeable analogies around like confetti > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 24 March 2013 10:07:52 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of >> rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 >> experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross >> and the US Cyber Command, the*Tallinn Manual on the International Law >> Applicable to Cyber Warfare* >> analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to >> state-sponsored cyberattacks. >> >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> >> - - - >> > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives > belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or > violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through > occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language > to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell > (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism > special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism > and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Professor Dr. Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Geografia Depto de Geografia Humana Pesquisador do CNPq http://www.cibergeo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 25 00:52:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:22:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <13d9f3db426.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <95A830C3-614E-476B-83BD-6834D9FDB4B9@hserus.net> Thank you for all these pointers, to your work and that at Brookings. There is a sizeable body of academic research and policy thinktank work already present in this space, but these are new to me and look well worth reading. --srs (iPad) On 25-Mar-2013, at 10:10, Hindenburgo Pires wrote: > Ian and Diego, thanks for sharing these documents for all members of this list. > > Since 2008 I've been studying and writing about the issues Networking Centric Warfare and Cyberwarfare: > - Global Internet Governance: The Representation of country toponyms in cyberspace - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-151b.htm > > I've read several articles written by the DoD’s Command and Control Research Program (CCRP). > > Currently I'm interested in the area of Geography of Cyberspace by themes of geopolitics and sovereignty in cyberspace: > - Interview to News Agency of Universidad Nacional de Colombia - http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/hay-que-democratizar-la-internet.html > - National states, sovereignty and regulation of the Internet - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-418/sn-418-63.htm > > The "Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" is a very important book for the continuation of studies that has been developing. > With respect to proposal "to publish an alternative version ...", the Foreign Policy Scholars at Brookings and Peter W. Singer and Thomas Wright wrote recently a Book and Memorandum to the President: > - Big Bets, Black Swans: a Presidential Briefing Book - Policy Recommendations for President Obama’s Second Term -http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/1/big%20bets%20black%20swans/big%20bets%20and%20black%20swans%20a%20presidential%20briefing%20book.pdf > - "An Obama Doctrine on New Rules of War" - http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/an-obama-doctrine-on-new-rules-of-war > > > 2013/3/24 Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Wonderful. You have now compared bush and Obama to as choice a collection of genocidal dictators as you can find and managed to throw in the now obligatory big brother comparison as well >> >> Purely as a history lesson to you, Louis, concentration camps started as British internment camps for the boer people during the boer war. Hitler extended the concept and also introduced death camps. >> >> The Soviet (and before them, Tsarist) and Chinese labor camps were a cheap way for them to get large amounts of convict labor to mine gold, build highways and rail lines etc in resource rich areas with inhospitable weather. So a subtle distinction and one that wouldn't matter much to the victims of either regime, but one that you might bear in mind when scattering disagreeable analogies around like confetti >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 24 March 2013 10:07:52 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >>>> >>>> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. >>>> >>>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >>>> >>>> - - - >>> >>> Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. >>> >>> Some more frightening documents on real war: >>> >>> http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 >>> >>> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture >>> >>> One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. >>> >>> Louis >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hindenburgo Francisco Pires > Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro > Instituto de Geografia > Depto de Geografia Humana > Pesquisador do CNPq > http://www.cibergeo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 25 01:53:39 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:53:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Facebook and Google Create Walled Gardens for Web Newcomers Overseas Message-ID: Relevant if the caucus, anyone else, proposing some network neutrality workshop. List of all proposals to date 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 lucabelli at hotmail.it Mon Mar 25 04:26:23 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:26:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook and Google Create Walled Gardens for Web Newcomers Overseas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Adam, Please note that the the ISOC NGL Programme Alumni, together with IFLA, are organising the following workshop: Working TitleShould Net Neutrality be enshrined into legislation? Concise description of broader thematic area of interestNet Neutrality (NN) is a core principle of the Internet architecture which is aggressively moving into the province of Internet policy. The mere self-regulation put in place by market players seems indeed insufficient to strongly enforce NN, and many governments are analysing the opportunity of adopting NN legislation to safeguard the fundamental freedoms of their citizens.Concise description of specific issues or policy questions to be addressedThis workshop will scrutiniSe the various national and international initiatives aimed at promoting NN, trying to highlight the most suitable approach in order to consecrate the NN principle into normative tools. The workshop will explore such questions as a) what are the technical bases of NN? b) How can such technical principles be properly translated into legislation? c) Which fundamental rights may be affected by non-neutral networks? d) Which practices can be deemed as an example?Workshop format:Round tableDescription of other workshop format (if required)The workshop will be organised as a dynamic roundtable that will try to establish a continuous exchange amongst panelists and attendees By all means, every interested list-member can feel free to contact me to comment our proposal and suggest improvements. Kind regards Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:53:39 +0900 > From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Facebook and Google Create Walled Gardens for Web Newcomers Overseas > > > > Relevant if the caucus, anyone else, proposing some network neutrality > workshop. > > List of all proposals to date > > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Mar 25 08:28:05 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:28:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Short report "A Policymaker’s Guide to Internet Tax" Adam On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > It was not that long ago when we were discussing Internet Sales Tax and > differing treatments by the OECD members and the US. There are further > developments within the US that are interesting with regard to internet > sales tax. Two this end, here are two separate pieces on it: > > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/24/26-republicans-vote-for-internet-sales-tax/ > An opinion piece on the Market Place Fairness Act, see: > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/18/the-marketplace-fairness-act-is-more-unfair-than-status-quo/ > > Brief Summary on the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 > > The S.336 Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentine's day, > 2013 and sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi [R-WY] There are 28 > co-sponsors (21D, 6R, 1I). You can track the Bill here: > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s336 > There is a prognosis that the Bill might not get past the Committee and 0% > chance of getting enacted. > > The H.R.684: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentines's > day, 2013 and sponsored by US Rep. Steve Womack [R-AR3] had 47 cosponsors > (25D, 22R). There is a prognosis that it has a 28% chance of getting past > the committee and 11% chance of getting enacted. You can track the Bill > here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr684 > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 25 13:01:51 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:31:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace - Computerworld sput sput gasp gasp!! djf References: <202F3492-4EF0-4D74-B05F-8D8A575C49B1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79627166-79C5-465C-8BBF-5C84E945C8DF@hserus.net> Worth discussing here --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: "DAVID J. FARBER" > Date: 25 March 2013 20:02:59 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace - Computerworld sput sput gasp gasp!! djf > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236603/A_Declaration_of_the_Interdependence_of_Cyberspace?taxonomyId=167&pageNumber=1 > > A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace > > Computerworld - On the anniversary of John Perry Barlow's issuing 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,' a response and alternate call to action. > > … > > A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace > > Libertarians of the Virtual World, you gray-bearded detractors of government and sovereignty, we too come from Cyberspace. On behalf of the future, we ask you of the past to leave us alone. Your declaration of independence rings false, and your stale principles are a threat to progress. > > The Internet has no elected government, nor is it likely to have one, but this does not mean it is not governed. The Internet is ruled, as are all technologies, not only by the norms and beliefs of its users, but also by the laws and values of the societies in which they live. > > You allege that government has had no role in the Internet, and for this reason it has no claim to the Internet today, but this accusation is founded on nothing more than ignorance and superstition. Government labs and government-funded research programs gave birth to the Internet's essential technologies, and government policies continue to guide the development of important Internet innovations today. > > .. > > > > Washington, D.C. > > February 8, 2013 > > Daniel Castro is a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit public policy think tank. > > Read more about Internet in Computerworld's Internet Topic Center. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/591238-ec20e345 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=591238&id_secret=591238-d223f43a > Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=591238&id_secret=591238-93f6132a&post_id=20130325103308:E7A01F4A-9558-11E2-BFE0-85B26E719EF2 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 13:56:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:56:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace - Computerworld sput sput gasp gasp!! djf In-Reply-To: <79627166-79C5-465C-8BBF-5C84E945C8DF@hserus.net> References: <202F3492-4EF0-4D74-B05F-8D8A575C49B1@gmail.com> <79627166-79C5-465C-8BBF-5C84E945C8DF@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Worth discussing here I read this when it first came out....zero nuance, but what can one expect from the folks who think US Broadband is all good ;-( http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/dc-think-tank-says-state-of-us-broadband-is-good-and-getting-better/ -- 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 Mon Mar 25 15:25:24 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:25:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba><13d9f3db426.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks Hindenburgo, glad to hear that we have a couple of experts on this subject here in yourself and Diego. Ian Peter From: Hindenburgo Pires Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Louis Pouzin (well) ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Ian and Diego, thanks for sharing these documents for all members of this list. Since 2008 I've been studying and writing about the issues Networking Centric Warfare and Cyberwarfare: - Global Internet Governance: The Representation of country toponyms in cyberspace - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-151b.htm I've read several articles written by the DoD’s Command and Control Research Program (CCRP). Currently I'm interested in the area of Geography of Cyberspace by themes of geopolitics and sovereignty in cyberspace: - Interview to News Agency of Universidad Nacional de Colombia - http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/article/hay-que-democratizar-la-internet.html - National states, sovereignty and regulation of the Internet - http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-418/sn-418-63.htm The "Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" is a very important book for the continuation of studies that has been developing. With respect to proposal "to publish an alternative version ...", the Foreign Policy Scholars at Brookings and Peter W. Singer and Thomas Wright wrote recently a Book and Memorandum to the President: - Big Bets, Black Swans: a Presidential Briefing Book - Policy Recommendations for President Obama’s Second Term -http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/1/big%20bets%20black%20swans/big%20bets%20and%20black%20swans%20a%20presidential%20briefing%20book.pdf - "An Obama Doctrine on New Rules of War" - http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/an-obama-doctrine-on-new-rules-of-war 2013/3/24 Suresh Ramasubramanian Wonderful. You have now compared bush and Obama to as choice a collection of genocidal dictators as you can find and managed to throw in the now obligatory big brother comparison as well Purely as a history lesson to you, Louis, concentration camps started as British internment camps for the boer people during the boer war. Hitler extended the concept and also introduced death camps. The Soviet (and before them, Tsarist) and Chinese labor camps were a cheap way for them to get large amounts of convict labor to mine gold, build highways and rail lines etc in resource rich areas with inhospitable weather. So a subtle distinction and one that wouldn't matter much to the victims of either regime, but one that you might bear in mind when scattering disagreeable analogies around like confetti --srs (htc one x) On 24 March 2013 10:07:52 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare - - - Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. Some more frightening documents on real war: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. Louis ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Professor Dr. Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Geografia Depto de Geografia Humana Pesquisador do CNPq http://www.cibergeo.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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 15:52:10 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:52:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world - Tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Borg Psaila Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:24 PM Subject: [Webinar] ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world - Tomorrow To: igcbp at diplomacy.edu Dear friends, I would like to invite you to our March IG webinar, on *ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world*, tomorrow 26th March, at 14:00 GMT. Our special guest is *Dr Tarek Kamel, *ICANN’s Senior Advisor to the President, and former Minister of Communication and Information Technology in Egypt. Dr Kamel will discuss ICANN’s new strategy, including ICANN’s expansion of its operational hub, regional engagement strategies that are being developed to answer each region’s specific needs, and initiatives that have been developed as an outreach tool to reach the populations that typically have low participation in Internet governance. Don't miss out on tomorrow's webinar! Register (attendance is free) by following the link below, or by visiting http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-icanns-new-engagement-strategy-developing-world E-see you tomorrow, Stephanie PS. To receive announcements/updates (such as the one below) about our webinars, join our IG webinars group . -- Stephanie Borg Psaila DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu *The latest from Diplo...* Stay networked; get informed; broadcast your projects. Join our Internet governance community at www.diplointernetgovernance.org ** Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . [image: [Webinar] ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world] *March Internet governance webinar: * ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world Dear friends, We would like to invite you to our March webinar, on *ICANN's new engagement strategy in the developing world*, hosted by *Dr Tarek Kamel*, ICANN’s Senior Advisor to the President, and former Minister of Communication and Information Technology in Egypt. Read more about Dr Kamel here . ICANN’s soul-searching continues: from the implementation of the management reform, the introduction of new gTLDs, and its new CEO, ICANN is moving closer to stakeholders in an effort to make the organisation relevant to its stakeholders around the globe. Our March webinar, on Tuesday, 26th March, will focus on ICANN’s new engagement strategy in the developing world. Dr Kamel will discuss ICANN’s new strategy, including: - ICANN’s expansion of its operational hub to include Istanbul and Singapore; - New offices in areas with a high density of stakeholders, for closer regional engagement; - Regional engagement strategies that are being developed to answer each region’s specific needs; - Initiatives, such as MIGworks, that have been developed as an outreach tool to reach the populations that typically have low participation in Internet governance. Join us on *Tuesday 26th March, at 14:00 GMT*, for another not-to-be-missed webinar. Attendance is free; registration is required. Please register here . Looking forward to e-seeing you! The IG webinars team Follow us on Twitter| Find us on Facebook| Forward to a friend *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you subscribed to our igwebinars mailing list. [image: DiploFoundation] -- *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 Mon Mar 25 17:44:58 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:44:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: US Senator Durbin's speech on why the Marketplace Fairness Act is important: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ID=450da78d-28be-4155-a2cf-32cf5f098103 The Senate voted in favour of the Bill (75-24). Sala On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Short report "A Policymaker’s Guide to Internet Tax" > > > > Adam > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > It was not that long ago when we were discussing Internet Sales Tax and > > differing treatments by the OECD members and the US. There are further > > developments within the US that are interesting with regard to internet > > sales tax. Two this end, here are two separate pieces on it: > > > > > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/24/26-republicans-vote-for-internet-sales-tax/ > > An opinion piece on the Market Place Fairness Act, see: > > > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/18/the-marketplace-fairness-act-is-more-unfair-than-status-quo/ > > > > Brief Summary on the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 > > > > The S.336 Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentine's day, > > 2013 and sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi [R-WY] There are 28 > > co-sponsors (21D, 6R, 1I). You can track the Bill here: > > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s336 > > There is a prognosis that the Bill might not get past the Committee and > 0% > > chance of getting enacted. > > > > The H.R.684: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on Valentines's > > day, 2013 and sponsored by US Rep. Steve Womack [R-AR3] had 47 cosponsors > > (25D, 22R). There is a prognosis that it has a 28% chance of getting past > > the committee and 11% chance of getting enacted. You can track the Bill > > here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr684 > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 25 20:37:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:07:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace - Computerworld sput sput gasp gasp!! djf In-Reply-To: References: <202F3492-4EF0-4D74-B05F-8D8A575C49B1@gmail.com> <79627166-79C5-465C-8BBF-5C84E945C8DF@hserus.net> Message-ID: There is probably a middle path between these two. US broadband isn't as bad as it is painted, certainly. And the John Gilmore Declaration of Independence of cyberspace IS a trifle utopian. --srs (iPad) On 25-Mar-2013, at 23:26, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Worth discussing here > > > I read this when it first came out....zero nuance, but what can one > expect from the folks who think US Broadband is all good ;-( > > http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/dc-think-tank-says-state-of-us-broadband-is-good-and-getting-better/ > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Post -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 26 02:09:12 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:09:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse: Preregistration Rights Only For Those Who Pay? Message-ID: <51513B88.5030301@gmail.com> ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse: Preregistration Rights Only For Those Who Pay? Published on 26 March 2013 @ 3:01 am Print This Post Print This Post By William New , Intellectual Property Watch Starting today, trademark owners from around the world will be able to have their rights recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Designed to help trademark owners manage the flood of new internet domains being launched by ICANN, it's an open question whether they will be satisfied with it. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), active on 26 March at California-based ICANN, was created in an effort to prepare for a wave of new top-level domains (TLDs) expected to go live over the coming years. More choice for users from hundreds of new address zones like .web, .paris or .xinwen could result in chaos for trademark owners, Jan Corstens, partner at Deloitte, the chosen provider for the TMCH, told /Intellectual Property Watch/. Having their data recorded in the Clearinghouse, Deloitte consultant Jonathan Robinson explained to /Intellectual Property Watch/, "does not secure them their name in every single registry. Every single registry will have its own policy." One registry policy might limit registration in a zone to entities based in Africa, for instance, while another might only be open to a certain language or community group. At the same time, where registration is open to everybody, a rights owner might face a long list of records in the TMCH for the same mark. Auction, the experts say, might in the end be the fairest way to decide about who will be able to register the name during what is called the sunrise phase. Clearinghouse No Fix for Mismatch Sunrise phases were introduced for the first launches of new TLDs 10 years ago to allow trademark owners to run first and stem the tide of domain grabbers and name pirates -- but it came at a huge difficulty for the registries inexperienced in checking the validity of marks. Deloitte has trained over a hundred experts to be able to check the validity of marks in (nearly) every country on earth, Corstens said, though, "Will I get marks in Urdu and from Ethiopia in different scripts?," he did not know. Checking the validity of the mark and allowing nationally or internationally (and court-) registered trademarks to sit in a global database which is managed under a separate contract by IBM is the core service of the TMCH. The Clearinghouse "does not create new rights," Robinson underlined. It is, so to speak, no fix for the fundamental mismatch between the domain name system which secures universality for one domain name owner only and the trademark system that allows for protection in national or regional areas and under different classes. What the Clearinghouse offers is validation and additional services in a special environment which do not come with classical trademark rights, Corstens said. Besides the sunrise service, there is a trademark claims service -- a kind of early warning system to a registrant aiming at registering a trademarked name not taken earlier. The registrant after acknowledging he has been notified -- with a dispute ongoing if IP addresses for this session can be stored by the registrars under strict EU data protection legislation -- can still continue with registration, but cannot claim anymore to not be aware of the protection. If the domain is registered, the right owner is notified and can choose what to do, the experts said. Trademark owners would have liked to extend this kind of service indefinitely, but ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade just announced that while ICANN will extend the claims service 90 days into the general registration phase, the organisation would let go an extended "Claims 2" provision. A possible result, said Torsten Bettinger, domain and trademark law expert and WIPO Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) panellist: "Violation of the trademark right will then happen after 90 days." Bettinger expects no further changes in the short run, if not governments will step up for more protection yet again. Changes to trademark services in the future are possible, said Robinson, who also acknowledged that some trademark owners might never be fully satisfied "to that extent that there is a group of people who always want more." Obliged to Pay for Trademark Protection? Reaction to the TMCH services from rights owners is not yet clear. How many will record their marks and pay US$145 per domain? Starting from 1000 trademarks or three-year registration a discount is offered. Robinson said that the records are obligatory to be eligible for sunrise pre-registration. It is still up to interpretation, said Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek, spokesman for dot.berlin, if registries could also acknowledge pre-registration rights for non-TMCH recorded marks. "We think you can provide for that in your registration policy," he wrote in reply to questions from Intellectual Property Watch. On the other hand, the registration policy also could make TMCH validation a pre-condition for sunrise rights, Bettinger argued. "The whole issue is, ICANN left it to the registries, what they will do," he said. A question also addressed down the road will be whether ICANN will allow trademark owners to choose from a variety of Trademark Clearing Services and have competition in the field. ICANN's management retroactively settled for a hard split between the service provider (Deloitte) and the database provider (IBM), negotiating a separate contract with IBM. With the database of recorded trademarks under direct contract, ICANN has paved the way for opening up competition on the service level, even if it is still very much open if the organisation will go for it. Deloitte Partner Corstens points to the need to first evaluate the potential impact on consistency of validation and integrity of data if there is are more validating agencies. Also the currently capped flat-rate pricing would have to be reconsidered, Corstens said. If another provider for example only offered services to an easy-to-validate niche, Deloitte could be compelled to reduce the price in the developed countries, and raise the price for more cost-intensive developing countries, something ICANN tried to avoid in the first place. In the short run, all parties seem to be looking for some stability in the ever-moving target of the new gTLD process. Chehade appealed to the community not to challenge the latest proposals he made with regard to the process, including a 30-day notice period before sunrise and the extension of the trademark claim service to abuse names. With the first 30 non-Latin TLDs just through the ICANN's general evaluation report, the first TLDs could go be introduced to the root zone in early summer, according gTLD Director Christine Willet. So will a lot of TLDs start their sunrise phase soon? Yes, said Willet, if there are no competing applications and the string is "in contention," if it does not have any objection and if it was not a recipient of GAC advice, they could go on to pre-delegation testing and contracting with ICANN. These are some ifs to consider. What an "if" could look like can be seen in the first list of the "Legal Rights Objection" that is addressed at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre where the globally operating pharmaceutical companies Merck KGaA (Germany) and Merck & Co. (US) try to get their names as a TLD respectively. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 26 02:24:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:54:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland" In-Reply-To: <2D1D1900-09F1-4D99-A866-E6FB0475E79C@acm.org> References: <04ba01ce2573$71cb03c0$55610b40$@gmail.com> <514BE43B.5000601@itforchange.net> <20130322052946.GA8197@hserus.net> <514BF225.5080004@itforchange.net> <514D6E58.9030701@itforchange.net> <8A0693D0-9B37-4BD4-8B3D-7599ED36107C@acm.org> <514EA52B.1060505@itforchange.net> <2D1D1900-09F1-4D99-A866-E6FB0475E79C@acm.org> Message-ID: <51513F0C.60501@itforchange.net> On Sunday 24 March 2013 08:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 24 Mar 2013, at 03:03, parminder wrote: > >> I tried to begin putting up some real principles and guidelines for civil society representatives selection. They were written informally, and can do with a lot of corrections. More substantive changes can also be introduced. So please make the required changes or propose a new starting point for developing such guidelines. > > I did. In fact Norbert took me up on my call, to first do an analysis of what we have been doing that looks like, for the most part it is working. He went further and suggested a review of the Nomcom practices and doing some analysis, perhaps gap analysis (my words not his). Yes, but then lets please go ahead. So then lets review existing/ completed processes. I thought listing some guidelines for the future is a better way to start, but if we have to go the other way around, very fine with me. But lets do something. > > For the rest, I accepted that you were making some fair points, but mentioned that I was uncomfortable in the direction you were heading for reasons I gave. Which is this direction? I am unable to understand. parminder > > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 02:24:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:24:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz Admonished In 2004 For Aggressive Tactic Message-ID: <51513F30.3000801@gmail.com> The same aggression on intellectual property that "killed" Swartz is also responsible for the preventable morbidity and mortality of Africans living with HIV, countries prevented from using their legal rights to copy patents for public health reasons... and now the USG is taking on India for use of such legal rights, while pressuring Antigua not to act on an online gambling WTO judgement to cross retaliate on intellectual property rights in a case it won. So much for international law disciplining naked power politics. But like with the financial crisis, the US mantra is, don't interrupt me when I am making money? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz_n_2951478.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business#slide=1983332 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 26 02:33:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:03:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz Admonished In 2004 For Aggressive Tactic In-Reply-To: <51513F30.3000801@gmail.com> References: <51513F30.3000801@gmail.com> Message-ID: Post hoc ergo propter hoc, among a host of other fallacies, none of which are anywhere relevant to internet governance. Senator Issa was rather more circumspect about what he was quoted as saying about this, than you are, I'll say that for you. --srs (iPad) On 26-Mar-2013, at 11:54, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > The same aggression on intellectual property that "killed" Swartz is also responsible for the preventable morbidity and mortality of Africans living with HIV, countries prevented from using their legal rights to copy patents for public health reasons... and now the USG is taking on India for use of such legal rights, while pressuring Antigua not to act on an online gambling WTO judgement to cross retaliate on intellectual property rights in a case it won. So much for international law disciplining naked power politics. But like with the financial crisis, the US mantra is, don't interrupt me when I am making money? > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz_n_2951478.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business#slide=1983332 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 26 02:36:35 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:06:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <515141F3.2020906@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 March 2013 01:59 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Louis, > > re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while > the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review > list, unsure myself how they worked together. > > But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence > modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds > like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming > we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. > > Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public > naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of > People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government > and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for > themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new > international law for cyber warfare. Lee, The prior issue is - where and how the discussions, and subsequent 'law making' processes, should take place. Among NATO countries, NATO plus some powerful countries, or forums and spaces that are more democratic and open?.... The future insitutional architecture of global Internet governance remains the centrepiece in all this, something which we seem not too keen to discuss. I see a considerable 'avoidance behaviour' in this regard, which does not do good for the world. Cyber warfare discussions are linked to those on big data, who lays and controls the pipes, global Internet businesses and so on - there has to be a global democratic space to take up these discussions, and develop principles, and if needed treaties and laws on various emergent global IG issues. What would be the right place/ institution to do this - that is the question we cannot escape. parminder > > Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal > framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. > > But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all > play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. > > Lee > > PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin > (well) [pouzin at well.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a > set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be > conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the > International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, > the/Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber > Warfare/ > analyzes > the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored > cyberattacks. > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > - - - > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. > Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the > capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much > influence, except through occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized > language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated > by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp > (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism > reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition > (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 26 02:38:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:08:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 March 2013 02:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I agree with Lee – I think there might be a lot we can do. > I think there is a strong argument for a declaration of an Internet > war free zone of sorts – I think of Swiss neutrality, > non-proliferation treaties, nuclear weapon free zones, etc. I think a > compelling argument can be made that cyberwarfare with its inability > to localise damage can be seen to be something we should not > contemplate. We may not be able to stop it, but we may be able to have > it declared illegal or immoral. That would be a good first step. Ian, Where do you think these steps can be taken, in an effective manner? Civil society needs a real doable roadmap. parminder > Ian Peter > *From:* Lee W McKnight > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Louis Pouzin (well) > ; Ian Peter > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > Louis, > > re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while > the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review > list, unsure myself how they worked together. > > But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence > modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds > like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming > we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. > > Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public > naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of > People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government > and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for > themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new > international law for cyber warfare. > > Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal > framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. > > But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all > play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. > > Lee > > PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin > (well) [pouzin at well.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. > A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a > set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be > conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the > International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, > the/Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber > Warfare/ > analyzes > the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored > cyberattacks. > http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare > - - - > > Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal > definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. > Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the > capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much > influence, except through occasional media power. > > Some more frightening documents on real war: > > http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture > > One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized > language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated > by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp > (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism > reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition > (torture), inter alia. > > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 26 03:21:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:51:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51514C93.3020200@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 03:14 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > US Senator Durbin's speech on why the Marketplace Fairness Act is > important: If market fairness regulation is important across states of the US, why such a regulation is not required across countries? (Is it just because in that case the net flow is so much in favour of the US?) As Riaz pointed out recently, when US regulates it is *not* Internet regulation but if anyone else, in order to protect their socio-economic interests, proposes so, it is a direct attack on Internet freedom!! And everyone knows what role global IG civil society has been playing in supporting such hypocrisy. It should be obvious that a global Internet requires global regulation. Whether it is cyber warfare, or collection of due taxes that are needed to run governments and as redistributive mechanisms, things seem all to point in one direction - Internet needs global governance, that is democratic, equitable and just,. And for this first of all we need an appropriate global IG architecture. And for God's sake CIR management is *not* global IG, it is an very small part of it. We we really take on a good thorough discussion on the appropriate global IG architecture that the world needs - which incidentally is the subject matter of the recently constituted CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Can I propose that the co-coordinators look at the possibility of starting such a discussion parminder > > http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ID=450da78d-28be-4155-a2cf-32cf5f098103 > > The Senate voted in favour of the Bill (75-24). > > Sala > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Short report "A Policymaker’s Guide to Internet Tax" > > > > Adam > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > It was not that long ago when we were discussing Internet Sales > Tax and > > differing treatments by the OECD members and the US. There are > further > > developments within the US that are interesting with regard to > internet > > sales tax. Two this end, here are two separate pieces on it: > > > > > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/24/26-republicans-vote-for-internet-sales-tax/ > > An opinion piece on the Market Place Fairness Act, see: > > > http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/18/the-marketplace-fairness-act-is-more-unfair-than-status-quo/ > > > > Brief Summary on the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 > > > > The S.336 Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on > Valentine's day, > > 2013 and sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi [R-WY] There are 28 > > co-sponsors (21D, 6R, 1I). You can track the Bill here: > > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s336 > > There is a prognosis that the Bill might not get past the > Committee and 0% > > chance of getting enacted. > > > > The H.R.684: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on > Valentines's > > day, 2013 and sponsored by US Rep. Steve Womack [R-AR3] had 47 > cosponsors > > (25D, 22R). There is a prognosis that it has a 28% chance of > getting past > > the committee and 11% chance of getting enacted. You can track > the Bill > > here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr684 > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 26 03:32:19 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:32:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Wish I had a simple answer, Parminder.... Awareness is the starting point, people aren’t talking about this or realising the ramifications. With growing awareness perhaps some sensible widely supported actions will emerge, or perhaps a multitude of related actions. This needs a broad social movement, and at some time an agreed course of action. If Brett Solomon is reading here, he might have some suggestions, and other groups here such as Electronic Frontier Foundation also have wide experience in this sort of area. But right now detailed analysis of Tallinn and its ramifications, brought down to a small readable document with the major points highlighted, would be a good step. Ian From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:38 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? On Monday 25 March 2013 02:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with Lee – I think there might be a lot we can do. I think there is a strong argument for a declaration of an Internet war free zone of sorts – I think of Swiss neutrality, non-proliferation treaties, nuclear weapon free zones, etc. I think a compelling argument can be made that cyberwarfare with its inability to localise damage can be seen to be something we should not contemplate. We may not be able to stop it, but we may be able to have it declared illegal or immoral. That would be a good first step. Ian, Where do you think these steps can be taken, in an effective manner? Civil society needs a real doable roadmap. parminder Ian Peter From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) ; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Louis, re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review list, unsure myself how they worked together. But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new international law for cyber warfare. Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. Lee PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter wrote: As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, theTallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks. http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare - - - Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much influence, except through occasional media power. Some more frightening documents on real war: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary rendition (torture), inter alia. Louis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 26 09:05:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:35:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 01:02 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Wish I had a simple answer, Parminder.... A complex answer will do as long as it means we can do something as civil society :) > Awareness is the starting point, people aren’t talking about this or > realising the ramifications. With growing awareness perhaps some > sensible widely supported actions will emerge, or perhaps a multitude > of related actions. > This needs a broad social movement, and at some time an agreed course > of action. If Brett Solomon is reading here, he might have some > suggestions, and other groups here such as Electronic Frontier > Foundation also have wide experience in this sort of area. Awareness, social movement building and political actions all work in a kind of dialectic (or trialectic) .... And at different times, there are different windows of opportunity. Right now we have a UN Working Group with the mandate to look into what is the appropriate institutional architecture for global governance. And we need to give our response to it. No, time wont wait. It took 8 years to get this working group, and it has just a year to produce its report. And if we do not respond to this opportunity, another similar one may not come for decades. It is fine if we prefer one kind of institutional architecture over the other - and our choice should be able to cover the whole gamut of issues that we have been discussing (so, no,again, it is not just critical Internet resources). However, we will need to make the overall choice now. Or the choice will be made by default. As they say, in politics, not doing anything is also an active political choice. I think it is this moment of reckoning that faces the civil society today. Will we be once again only be reactive. Or are we able to be a part of setting the agenda this time around. parminder > But right now detailed analysis of Tallinn and its ramifications, > brought down to a small readable document with the major points > highlighted, would be a good step. > Ian > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:38 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Ian Peter > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? > On Monday 25 March 2013 02:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with Lee – I think there might be a lot we can do. >> I think there is a strong argument for a declaration of an Internet >> war free zone of sorts – I think of Swiss neutrality, >> non-proliferation treaties, nuclear weapon free zones, etc. I think a >> compelling argument can be made that cyberwarfare with its inability >> to localise damage can be seen to be something we should not >> contemplate. We may not be able to stop it, but we may be able to >> have it declared illegal or immoral. That would be a good first step. > > Ian, > > Where do you think these steps can be taken, in an effective manner? > Civil society needs a real doable roadmap. > > parminder > >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Lee W McKnight >> *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; Louis Pouzin (well) >> ; Ian Peter >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> Louis, >> >> re CS influence, I note the Red Cross had a seat at the table while >> the docs were drafted or at least was on the pre-publication review >> list, unsure myself how they worked together. >> >> But I would not be so dismissive of CS's ability to influence >> modification of part or object to certain sections. In fact, sounds >> like a good topic for an IGC co-sponsored workshop at IGF...assuming >> we don;t already have a submission coming in right on target. >> >> Now putting on my political and media games analyst hat...the public >> naming and shaming of the particular building in Shanghai full of >> People's Liberation Army contractors incessantly cracking government >> and firm systems and - borrowing?- or should I say sharing for >> themselves that information, fits in context of the push towards new >> international law for cyber warfare. >> >> Which in principle may be better than the absence of such a legal >> framework; or granted, possibly worse when implemented in practice. >> >> But my comment is just that it is too soon to say how this will all >> play out, and we should not assume we cannot have an impact on the path. >> >> Lee >> >> PS: And belated warmest congratulations!!! : ) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin >> (well) [pouzin at well.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:37 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter >> *Subject:* [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? >> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: >> >> As Samuel Morse might have remarked, “What God hath wrought”. >> A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a >> set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be >> conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the >> International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber >> Command, the/Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable >> to Cyber Warfare/ >> analyzes >> the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored >> cyberattacks. >> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare >> - - - >> >> Thanks Ian for precious links. It seems that time is coming for legal >> definitions of cyberwarfare, in which we are living already. >> Initiatives belong to the powers that be, the only ones with the >> capacity to follow or violate the rules. CS doesn't have much >> influence, except through occasional media power. >> >> Some more frightening documents on real war: >> >> http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/latin_america_territorio_libre_from_the_cia_partner/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 >> >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture >> >> One may observe that oppressive regimes resort to coded sanitized >> language to mean illegal and criminal activities. This was >> anticipated by Orwell (newspeak), and turned real with soviet labor >> camp (concentration), nazism special treatment (gas chamber), maoism >> reeducation (deportation), bushism and obamism extraordinary >> rendition (torture), inter alia. >> >> Louis >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 26 11:14:06 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:14:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> Dear all I have been offline for a few days as I was in a rural area with poor connectivity. Apologies for delay in responding. Parminder, this is definitely a good discussion to have, and Nnenna has already outlined many of the questions that were in my mind as well. There were three reasons for my decision to accept the role of focal point that I would like to share at this point: 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, made an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves. Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil society to manage this type of process. 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the identification of civil society actors for participation in IG processes to the IGC. The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) claim to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest in, internet policy and governance. With more time I would have liked to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g. rotation, and distribute the call even wider. 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community whose experience and help I could rely on. These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. But what is considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a transparent and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best results. No process will be perfect. This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider the weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other groups - so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups. It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion, facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe, able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions. Being critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others. Anriette On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: > First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the > process. > Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work > once selected. > > On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great > earthquake > and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it > should be. > That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. > > And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with you. > And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, hopefully > drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to > reviewing > the past or existing ones. > > best, > > izumi > > > > 2013/3/20 Adam Peake > >> Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. >> >> Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And >> Nnenna's given some great ideas. >> >> But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather >> than a postmortem on what was and might have been. >> >> I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the >> first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of >> CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent >> WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, >> possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we >> look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather >> than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably >> me included.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: >>> The discussion, I think, has starte >> d. It might have taken off in a >>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >>> >>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >>> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >> methodology. >>> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we >> still >>> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. >>> >>> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, >> but >>> at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for >>> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >>> >>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for >>> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >> document, >>> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be >> VERY >>> helpful. >>> >>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >>> >>> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the >> CSTD, >>> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette >> and >>> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in >> so >>> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a >> "a >>> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". >>> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted >> to >>> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. >>> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear >>> others on this though >>> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should >> we >>> discuss a minimum quota? >>> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any >>> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the >> same >>> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we >> strike >>> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths >>> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues >> and >>> manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will >> arrive >>> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >> "qualified" >>> people... >>> What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made >>> between experience and representation, or between experience and >> opportunity >>> for growth? >>> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to >>> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say >> "we" >>> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous >>> with "people who can travel and be there physically"? >>> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need >> to >>> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has >>> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >>> ..... many more...:) >>> >>> >>> Nnennna >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: parminder >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >>> >>> >>> Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. >>> >>> I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for >> forwarding my >>> name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. >>> >>> Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed >> for >>> the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or >>> after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from >> the >>> IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. >>> >>> We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final >>> selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, >> do >>> not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to >> contribute - >>> to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we >> will >>> get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help >> anyone >>> in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even >> better >>> way. >>> >>> I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do >> not >>> appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion >> only >>> after the process is completed. >>> >>> I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by >>> some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too >>> easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and >>> against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We >> have >>> a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not >>> directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our >>> internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much >> prefer >>> that we overdo it rather than underdo it. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the >> chances >>> of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no >>> one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... >>> However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have >> already >>> been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to >> postpone >>> raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report >> by >>> the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for >>> this working group before I released the names of the candidates. >>> >>> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person >>> did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 >>> names. >>> >>> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on >>> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put >>> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their >>> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in >>> preselecting the IGC nominees. >>> >>> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted >>> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: >>> >>> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) >>> >>> Avri Doria (N America) >>> Carlos Afonso (A America) >>> Don McClean (N America) >>> Grace Githaiga (Africa) >>> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) >>> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) >>> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) >>> William Drake (Europe) >>> >>> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from >>> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who >>> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise >>> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of >>> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>> >>> *Background* >>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>> >>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>> >>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>> >>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>> >>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >>> convenor of the group. >>> >>> >>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>> >>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >>> >>> *Nominees* >>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>> >>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>> >>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>> >>> *Scoring process* >>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>> >>> >>> The criteria were as follows: >>> >>> >>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >>> processes. >>> >>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>> >>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>> >>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>> conflicting interests. >>> >>> >>> *Shortlist* >>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>> regional and gender balance. >>> >>> >>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure >>> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >>> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>> >>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>> >>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >>> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >>> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >>> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >>> the broader internet community. >>> >>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>> >>> >>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>> >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 Tue Mar 26 12:25:25 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:25:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers Anriette Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Working Group. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in the Working Group. The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. Sincerely yours, Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Note on Membership.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 100143 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Mar 26 11:48:23 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:48:23 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: Awareness, social movement building and political actions all work in a kind of dialectic (or trialectic) .... And at different times, there are different windows of opportunity. Right now we have a UN Working Group with the mandate to look into what is the appropriate institutional architecture for global governance. And we need to give our response to it. No, time wont wait. It took 8 years to get this working group, and it has just a year to produce its report. And if we do not respond to this opportunity, another similar one may not come for decades. Wolfgang: The issues raised in the Tallion Manual are under discussion ion the UN since the late 1990s. There is a "Group of Governmental Experts" (GGE) which discusses all the issues and there are numerous bilateral channels between Russia and the US, China and the US, the EU and the US etc. Unfortunately there is no civil socviety involvement in those multilateral or bilateral discussion an this type of cybersecurity. There is also a working group under the ITU (wioth no civil society members) http://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/ http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/membersbio.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Mar 26 12:33:09 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:33:09 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers Anriette Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Working Group. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in the Working Group. The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. Sincerely yours, Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Mar 26 13:20:11 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:50:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> Message-ID: <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> Ms. Constance Bommelaer, The document names the representatives from the technical and academic communities as Ms. Constance Bommelaer, Director of Public Policy, The Internet Society Mr. Alex Corenthin, Director of Information Systems, Cheikh Anta Diop University Mr. Chris Disspain, Chief Executive Officer, .au Domain Administration Mr. Baher Esmat, Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement for the Middle East,Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Mr. Andrés Piazza, External Relations Officer, Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry I assume the group would have members from the technical and academic communities As the focal point for this group, can you please tell us who are from the academic community in this list. Thanking you in anticipation. regards, Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change On 03/26/2013 09:55 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > > Anriette > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines > for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I > distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the > final composition of the Working Group in the attached Note. I also > am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from > Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Working Group. > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated > focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their > efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective > representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the > Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly > resolution 67/195. > > There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a > challenging exercise. It was not possible to include all requests > for membership in the Working Group. > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions > shall govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > Discussions should be open and transparent and respect all proposals > and opinions. The report of the Working Group will be adopted by > consensus. > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for > observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not they > are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil > society, technical and academic communities as well as other > international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer > privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the > ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding > preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science > and Technology for Development > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 26 16:14:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:14:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] IPW / United States Chided As TRIPS Scofflaw At WTO Message-ID: <515201B1.6040003@gmail.com> Seems like it is not just low patent quality standards that bedogs the ICT sector in the US as far as intellectual property rights are concerned... there is also the double standards on trademarks as the IP Watch article intimates, and US compliance with international law on trade marks... be interesting to see how ICANN deals with this if or when this comes up with its new registry... Perhaps this article makes a case for both the internationalisation of CIR crowd, and the status quoists. For the internationalisation crowd it points to the lack of US candidature as a benevolent dictator over CIR. For the status quoists it makes the point, see how difficult it is to get anything done, best play the game and maximise what can be wrought. Riaz United States Chided As TRIPS Scofflaw At WTO Published on 26 March 2013 @ 8:02 pm Print This Post Print This Post By William New , Intellectual Property Watch A clause found to be unfairly protecting a rum company's US market by denying trademark rights quietly stuck into a US Congress appropriations bill in the deep of night in the late 1990s continues to haunt the halls of the World Trade Organization -- but that does not seem to trouble US trade authorities. And this is not the only intellectual property-related case being met with US indifference, an irony for possibly the biggest proponent of IP rights in the world. "The conduct of the United States unscrupulously discredits the WTO dispute settlement system and also constitutes an affront to the intellectual property rights," Cuba said today. At a WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting today, a number of WTO members fired shots at the US delegation for its continued failure to change its laws to comply with WTO rulings that found it out of compliance on intellectual property-related issues. This includes the case involving a rum trademark dating back over a decade, and a more recent case involving a US online gambling ban that led a WTO panel to authorise the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda to extract payment by not protecting US IP rights until it complies. The irony of the US as IP scofflaw was not lost on competitors like Antigua and Barbuda or Cuba, which said the US slackness discredits its IP rights enforcement campaign as well as the very WTO dispute settlement process itself. "It is very ironic to observe the United States projecting laws on intellectual property, despite keeping violations as egregious as Section 211," under which the Bacardi Company continues to market rum labelled Havana Club, which is otherwise owned by Cuba and partners. "This is one of the most famous cases of trademark counterfeiting and conducting misleading advertising by a company backed by the US legislation." The lack of any substantive change by the United States in today's report to the DSB "is irrefutable proof that this country has [done] nothing during more than 11 years to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings, which ruled the incompatibility of "Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998" with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention," the Cuban ambassador to the WTO said in a translated statement. TRIPS is the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Cuba has interest in the rum case because it is a part owner of the rum trademark everywhere in the world except the United States. "The legislative projects to which the US delegation makes reference in their reports each month remain stagnant because it does not constitute a priority or real interest for the administration or the Congress of that country," Cuba said. "However, by their displaying of incoherent foreign policy, we frequently observe how that Member promotes initiatives in terms of 'enforcement of intellectual property rights.'" For instance, Cuba said the recently announced US-European Union trade agreement contains the goal of "maintaining and promoting a high level of protection" of IPRs. Even the 27-member European Union weighed in on the Section 211 case, thanking the US for its report and adding the hope that "US authorities will very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB ruling and resolve this matter." The EU also urged that the US also comply with another IP case -- Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act -- which involved the US commercial practice of playing music recordings, such as Irish music, aloud in bars without paying royalties. "We refer to our previous statements that we would like to resolve this case as soon as possible," the EU said. Venezuela joined Cuba in condemning the United States for its failure to comply with the rum case, and raised deep concerns about a continued lack of action. "This situation is unacceptable, disappointing, and worrying, not only because it affects a developing country member of this organisation, but also for the grave repercussions against the credibility of DSB and the multilateral system of trade," Venezuela said in its statement (unofficial translation). Zimbabwe also spoke in support of Cuba, saying, "Once again, it is regrettable that the United States of America continues to disregard the rulings and recommendations of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the dispute." The United States for its part had numerous complaints about other nations, such as the European Union's slow adherence to a ruling requiring it to accept biotech products. Antigua and Barbuda: Last Call for US Settlement Meanwhile, in the high-profile online gambling case where Antigua and Barbuda have been given the green light to retaliate under the TRIPS Agreement by not protecting US IPRs, the tiny nation today again appealed the United States to show progress toward complying with the WTO ruling. "The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda has so far not seen substantial progress on compliance by the United States with the DSB's decision," the country said in a shortened version of its statement. "Nor have they seen substantial progress by the United States in achieving a settlement with Antigua and Barbuda." The country said it is "disappointed" by the lack of progress as the "negative consequences of this protracted impasse are very real for Antigua and Barbuda." It said the case is a test for member states "seeking to determine whether the [WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding] can deliver practical and timely benefits for small and vulnerable countries." It demanded a reason why after 5 years the US still cannot honour the DSB decision nor reach an agreed settlement. In January, the DSB authorised Antigua and Barbuda to use cross-retaliation under TRIPS to recover its damages. "But before it sets its foot to that path, Antigua and Barbuda appeals to the United States to make one last effort at bringing its complex bureaucratic structure to a decision that will avoid unpredictable consequences," it said. "The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda also appeals to the DSB to realize that justice delayed is justice denied, and urges closer attention to the systemic issues that surround this case that threaten the health of the system the WTO has for the resolution of trade disputes." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 26 18:01:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:31:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? The question of how there came to be two asiapac cs reps and none from Europe also comes to mind here, if you want to carp about this detail --srs (iPad) On 26-Mar-2013, at 22:50, Guru गुरु wrote: > Ms. Constance Bommelaer, > > The document names the representatives from the technical and academic communities as > > Ms. Constance Bommelaer, Director of Public Policy, The Internet Society > Mr. Alex Corenthin, Director of Information Systems, Cheikh Anta Diop University > Mr. Chris Disspain, Chief Executive Officer, .au Domain Administration > Mr. Baher Esmat, Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement for the Middle East,Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > Mr. Andrés Piazza, External Relations Officer, Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry > > I assume the group would have members from the technical and academic communities > > As the focal point for this group, can you please tell us who are from the academic community in this list. > > Thanking you in anticipation. > > regards, > Guru > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > > > On 03/26/2013 09:55 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who > have been > > > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for > observers > > > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > > > > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and > Guidelines > > > for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I > > > distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform you > of the > > > final composition of the Working Group in the attached Note. > I also > > > am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the > CSTD from > > > Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Working Group. > > > > > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the > designated > > > focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for > their > > > efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective > > > representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing > the > > > Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General > Assembly > > > resolution 67/195. > > > > > > There were many expressions of interest from people with > substantial > > > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives > a > > > challenging exercise. It was not possible to include all > requests > > > for membership in the Working Group. > > > > > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional > Commissions > > > shall govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. > > > Discussions should be open and transparent and respect all > proposals > > > and opinions. The report of the Working Group will be adopted > by > > > consensus. > > > > > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open > for > > > observers, including Member States regardless of whether or > not they > > > are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, > civil > > > society, technical and academic communities as well as other > > > > international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer > > > privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure > of the > > > ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > > > > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have > been > > > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding > > > > preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on > Science > > > and Technology for Development > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 26 18:11:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:41:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] IPW / United States Chided As TRIPS Scofflaw At WTO In-Reply-To: <515201B1.6040003@gmail.com> References: <515201B1.6040003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <24C8B3AA-A4DB-436A-A040-F275754DDD05@hserus.net> For the status quoists as you call them this shows that WTO / trips are a double edged sword, easily capable of being used by small nations against larger ones, and there are teeth to this agreement that any country ignores at its peril. As for the ICANN clearinghouse, that does appear to be a routine due diligence process and my inclination would be to wait and watch before passing judgement. --srs (iPad) On 27-Mar-2013, at 1:44, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Seems like it is not just low patent quality standards that bedogs the ICT sector in the US as far as intellectual property rights are concerned... there is also the double standards on trademarks as the IP Watch article intimates, and US compliance with international law on trade marks... be interesting to see how ICANN deals with this if or when this comes up with its new registry... > > Perhaps this article makes a case for both the internationalisation of CIR crowd, and the status quoists. For the internationalisation crowd it points to the lack of US candidature as a benevolent dictator over CIR. For the status quoists it makes the point, see how difficult it is to get anything done, best play the game and maximise what can be wrought. > > Riaz -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 19:14:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:14:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, It probably because there is no categorisation for the Pacific. Asia - Parminder Pacific - Joy The Pacific region has 22 countries and territories. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:33 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi > > congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to > see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the > proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this > unbalanced selection? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette > Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation > > > > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > > Anriette > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 > February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the > Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. > Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as > Chair of the Working Group. > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal > points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in > facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was > very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind > paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. > > There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging > exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in > the Working Group. > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall > govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions > should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The > report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, > including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of > the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and > academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental > organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of > Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations > for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala > Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Tue Mar 26 19:47:21 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:47:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations to the CS representatives. Point taken Wolfgang, but I am sure there is an overall balance in the broader group. I think it is essential for CS to focus on global imbalance. It is the coal face of change. That said, I appreciate your work too! Tracey  Representatives from civil society  Mr. Carlos A. Afonso, Executive Director, NUPEF Institute  Ms. Avri Doria, Independent Researcher  Ms. Grace Githaiga, Associate, Kenya ICT Action Network  Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Programme Leader for Human Rights on the Internet, Association for Progressive Communications  Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change On 27/03/2013, at 3:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers Anriette Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Working Group. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in the Working Group. The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. Sincerely yours, Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 23:22:48 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:22:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni there. In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint about CSTD politics: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 26 23:25:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:25:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> So the question remains - why does IT4Change keep trying to shortchange the technical and academic community by 1. Claiming that it is not part of civil society 2. Questioning the credentials of those who identify / are identified as members of that community? Surely it is time 4 a change in ITs attitude? McTim [26/03/13 23:22 -0400]: >On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? > > >Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and >network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he >was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni >there. > >In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint >about CSTD politics: > >http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings > > >-- >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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Mar 26 23:43:10 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:43:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 27/03/2013, at 11:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > So the question remains - why does IT4Change keep trying to shortchange the > technical and academic community by > > 1. Claiming that it is not part of civil society > > 2. Questioning the credentials of those who identify / are identified as > members of that community? > > Surely it is time 4 a change in ITs attitude? Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public interest by refusing to countenance any evolution to present exclusionary Internet governance arrangements. Once the tech community changes its tune, I'm sure so will those who are calling it out (which is hardly just IT for Change). -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 27 00:22:13 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:22:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: But New Zealand's not one of the 22 countries of the Pacific, is it? Adam On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > It probably because there is no categorisation for the Pacific. > > Asia - Parminder > Pacific - Joy > > The Pacific region has 22 countries and territories. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:33 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to >> see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the >> proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced >> selection? >> >> Thanks >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on >> Enhanced Cooperation >> >> >> >> >> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been >> selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, >> >> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the >> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 >> February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the >> Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. >> Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as >> Chair of the Working Group. >> >> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal >> points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in >> facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was >> very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind >> paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. >> >> There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial >> relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging >> exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in >> the Working Group. >> >> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall >> govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions >> should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The >> report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. >> >> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, >> including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of >> the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and >> academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental >> organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of >> Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. >> >> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been >> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations >> for the first meeting of the Working Group. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> >> Miguel Palomino de la Gala >> Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 27 00:45:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:15:20 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 09:18 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > > Awareness, social movement building and political actions all work in a kind of dialectic (or trialectic) .... And at different times, there are different windows of opportunity. Right now we have a UN Working Group with the mandate to look into what is the appropriate institutional architecture for global governance. And we need to give our response to it. No, time wont wait. It took 8 years to get this working group, and it has just a year to produce its report. And if we do not respond to this opportunity, another similar one may not come for decades. > > Wolfgang: > > The issues raised in the Tallion Manual are under discussion ion the UN since the late 1990s. There is a "Group of Governmental Experts" (GGE) which discusses all the issues and there are numerous bilateral channels between Russia and the US, China and the US, the EU and the US etc. Unfortunately there is no civil socviety involvement in those multilateral or bilateral discussion an this type of cybersecurity. There is also a working group under the ITU (wioth no civil society members) > > http://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/ > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/membersbio.html Yes, Wolfgang, I know that the first committee of the UN discusses it through the GGE. And I also know that the US refuses to look into any kind of new agreements and texts on cyber warfare issues claiming that the current warfare/ security agreements are enough for this purpose. I understand that some countries like India seek evolutionary use of current agreements but also an exploration of new issues which may require new work. But these discussions in the GGE have two problems (1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside participation (2) Cyber warfare and security issues get discussed in isolation from connected cyber issues of human rights, big data, big Internet business, cross border data flows and so on. A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation than perhaps any comparable body anywhere in the world (including OECD, CoE, etc etc), is obviously the appropriate institutional response to this and other emerging issues in the information society. And all these issues are very important and urgent from a global public interest point of view. But the status quo-ist forces because of their obvious vested interests are simply too strong in opposition to such developments. What I find most difficult to understand however is the civil society's reluctance to discuss such needed evolutions. 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 Wed Mar 27 01:04:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:04:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> Exclusionary? That's yet another canard - or at least a gross oversimplification of a rather more nuanced situation. Meanwhile, try registering for and walking into an ICANN meeting anywhere in the world, and see if you get excluded. No? I thought not .. Jeremy Malcolm [27/03/13 11:43 +0800]: >On 27/03/2013, at 11:25 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> So the question remains - why does IT4Change keep trying to shortchange the >> technical and academic community by >> >> 1. Claiming that it is not part of civil society >> >> 2. Questioning the credentials of those who identify / are identified as >> members of that community? >> >> Surely it is time 4 a change in ITs attitude? > > >Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public interest by refusing to countenance any evolution to present exclusionary Internet governance arrangements. Once the tech community changes its tune, I'm sure so will those who are calling it out (which is hardly just IT for Change). > >-- >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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 01:13:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:13:12 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130327051312.GB24895@hserus.net> parminder [27/03/13 10:15 +0530]: >(1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside >participation >A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross >cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a >manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder >participation than perhaps any comparable body anywhere in the world >(including OECD, CoE, etc etc), is obviously the appropriate Seriously? I am afraid I dont find it "obviously appropriate" as an institutional response. Reality suggests that it most likely is not, and will be subsumed by other, closed processes. And meanwhile, even India - which was initially backing this proposal that has rather limited support among even Indian civil society or industry, seems to have moved well away from it and is advocating engagement with ICANN. Where does that leave the proposal, except in an IT4change position paper or powerpoint deck? srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 27 02:26:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:26:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 27/03/2013, at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Exclusionary? That's yet another canard - or at least a gross > oversimplification of a rather more nuanced situation. > > Meanwhile, try registering for and walking into an ICANN meeting anywhere > in the world, and see if you get excluded. No? I thought not .. So we would like to see that kind of openness in the institutions that are developing global policies for Internet governance issues besides naming and numbering (to the extent that these even exist). For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is currently negotiating what may become de-facto global rules for the Internet, such as obligations to secure the free flow of information (including personal data) across borders, extending copyright law to cover temporary electronic copies such as those made by Internet intermediaries, imposing a globalised DMCA for content take-down, and much more. These are the kind of issues that we say should be developed through a transparent, multi-stakeholder process, not an exclusionary, closed door one. In ten years time, the technical community representatives who are now opposing such reforms will look as short-sighted for doing so as they now look for having previously opposed the formation of the IGF. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 27 02:29:35 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:35 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <515291CF.6080407@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 10:03 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi > > congratulations to the selected CS members, Thanks Wolfgang, and all of IGC, for supporting my nomination. I accept this responsibility in all humility. The views that I will take to the Working Group are well know here, which I understand was the basis of the IGC nomcom forwarding my name among others. IT for Change had also canvassed to a broader civil society constituency - who know and largely share our views in this matter, and my nomination was supported by 42 organisations/ networks . I thanks all of them through this email (and will also write separately) . IT for Change's plan is to keep up lines of intense engagement and consultations will all these groups, and others, to develop our positions at the Working Group meetings. We consider this WG to be of outstanding importance. Its proceedings and outcomes can help us further develop the institutional framework for collective governance in public interest of a phenomenon that is considered by many as having a vital role in shaping our future societies. For this purpose, I have also sought to open up a discussion in the IGC. Thanks, and best regards parminder > however I am very surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > > > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > > Anriette > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 > February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the > Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. > Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as > Chair of the Working Group. > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal > points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in > facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was > very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind > paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. > > There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging > exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in > the Working Group. > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall > govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions > should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The > report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, > including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of > the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and > academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental > organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of > Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations > for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala > Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 02:39:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:39:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: <51514C93.3020200@itforchange.net> References: <51514C93.3020200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130327073951.7e8007a3@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: [with IGC coordinator hat on] > We we really take on a good thorough discussion on the appropriate > global IG architecture that the world needs - which incidentally is > the subject matter of the recently constituted CSTD Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation. > > Can I propose that the co-coordinators look at the possibility of > starting such a discussion I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Discussions on this list are of course always possible, and don't need a coordinator to start them. But you probably mean something more formal... maybe a process to develop an IGC statement? Or something else? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 27 02:46:15 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:16:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> Message-ID: <9D3A7AB7-98D2-4ACE-AA8D-5335E39DEAB7@hserus.net> Not many of them are related to internet governance per se. They are related to cross border enforcement of national laws. It is highly important that we collectively don't confuse the two. --srs (iPad) On 27-Mar-2013, at 11:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/03/2013, at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Exclusionary? That's yet another canard - or at least a gross >> oversimplification of a rather more nuanced situation. >> >> Meanwhile, try registering for and walking into an ICANN meeting anywhere >> in the world, and see if you get excluded. No? I thought not .. > > So we would like to see that kind of openness in the institutions that are developing global policies for Internet governance issues besides naming and numbering (to the extent that these even exist). For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is currently negotiating what may become de-facto global rules for the Internet, such as obligations to secure the free flow of information (including personal data) across borders, extending copyright law to cover temporary electronic copies such as those made by Internet intermediaries, imposing a globalised DMCA for content take-down, and much more. These are the kind of issues that we say should be developed through a transparent, multi-stakeholder process, not an exclusionary, closed door one. In ten years time, the technical community representatives who are now opposing such reforms will look as short-sighted for doing so as they now look for having previously opposed the formation of the IGF. > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 02:53:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:53:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > But New Zealand's not one of the 22 countries of the Pacific, is it? > > Adam > > Under the Secretariat of the Pacific Community's categorisation, New > Zealand is part of the Pacific categorisation of the 22 countries and > territories. Under the UN categorisation, Australia and New Zealand fall > under Western European for some weird reason - I remember, this is from > memory. > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > > > It probably because there is no categorisation for the Pacific. > > > > Asia - Parminder > > Pacific - Joy > > > > The Pacific region has 22 countries and territories. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:33 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised > to > >> see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the > >> proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this > unbalanced > >> selection? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> wolfgang > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette > >> Esterhuysen > >> Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 > >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group > on > >> Enhanced Cooperation > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > >> selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > >> > >> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for > the > >> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 > >> February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of > the > >> Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. > >> Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as > >> Chair of the Working Group. > >> > >> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal > >> points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in > >> facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which > was > >> very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind > >> paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. > >> > >> There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > >> relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a > challenging > >> exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in > >> the Working Group. > >> > >> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions > shall > >> govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > Discussions > >> should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. > The > >> report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > >> > >> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for > observers, > >> including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of > >> the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and > >> academic communities as well as other international and > intergovernmental > >> organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules > of > >> Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > >> > >> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > >> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding > preparations > >> for the first meeting of the Working Group. > >> > >> Sincerely yours, > >> > >> > >> Miguel Palomino de la Gala > >> Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > -- 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 pwilson at apnic.net Wed Mar 27 02:53:06 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:53:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> Message-ID: <916B9446-E5C5-49B3-AC28-E098830FFAD6@apnic.net> Hi Jeremy, The technical community did not oppose the IGF. There may have been some members who did, and risks and reservations felt by others; but there was no adopted position against the IGF, nor even a widely shared opinion. The IGF was seen by many of us then, as it is now, as an option that *could* represent a respectable multi-stakeholder process, and carry that process forward in productive ways. Paul. On 27/03/2013, at 4:26 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/03/2013, at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Exclusionary? That's yet another canard - or at least a gross >> oversimplification of a rather more nuanced situation. >> >> Meanwhile, try registering for and walking into an ICANN meeting anywhere >> in the world, and see if you get excluded. No? I thought not .. > > So we would like to see that kind of openness in the institutions that are developing global policies for Internet governance issues besides naming and numbering (to the extent that these even exist). For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is currently negotiating what may become de-facto global rules for the Internet, such as obligations to secure the free flow of information (including personal data) across borders, extending copyright law to cover temporary electronic copies such as those made by Internet intermediaries, imposing a globalised DMCA for content take-down, and much more. These are the kind of issues that we say should be developed through a transparent, multi-stakeholder process, not an exclusionary, closed door one. In ten years time, the technical community representatives who are now opposing such reforms will look as short-sighted for doing so as they now look for having previously opposed the formation of the IGF. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 27 02:58:05 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:58:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <916B9446-E5C5-49B3-AC28-E098830FFAD6@apnic.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> <916B9446-E5C5-49B3-AC28-E098830FFAD6@apnic.net> Message-ID: On 27/03/2013, at 2:53 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > The technical community did not oppose the IGF. That's why I phrased it as "the technical community representatives" who opposed 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 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 27 03:02:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:02:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: <20130327073951.7e8007a3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51514C93.3020200@itforchange.net> <20130327073951.7e8007a3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 27/03/2013, at 2:39 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> We we really take on a good thorough discussion on the appropriate >> global IG architecture that the world needs - which incidentally is >> the subject matter of the recently constituted CSTD Working Group on >> Enhanced Cooperation. >> >> Can I propose that the co-coordinators look at the possibility of >> starting such a discussion > > I'm not sure what you're asking for here. > > Discussions on this list are of course always possible, and don't need > a coordinator to start them. > > But you probably mean something more formal... maybe a process to > develop an IGC statement? Or something else? If it helps, the Best Bits network (which is, of course, open to anyone on this list to join, as many of you already have) will be setting up a working group to try to develop a unified civil society position (or positions) on this, and we'll have another two-day meeting ahead of the IGF in Bali to finalise it, along with a workshop to present it to the other stakeholder groups. We'll be working closely with the CSTD working group of course, and it helps that four out of the five civil society nominees are past Best Bits participants. Stay tuned for more on this - but meanwhile you can be assured that there is some preparatory activity going on behind the scenes. -- 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 pwilson at apnic.net Wed Mar 27 03:03:11 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:03:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> <20130327050404.GA24895@hserus.net> <916B9446-E5C5-49B3-AC28-E098830FFAD6@apnic.net> Message-ID: <66072DAB-624D-4DA6-BD0D-98FD85EDE3F0@apnic.net> OK thanks. On 27/03/2013, at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/03/2013, at 2:53 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> The technical community did not oppose the IGF. > > That's why I phrased it as "the technical community representatives" who opposed 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 > > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 27 03:04:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:34:26 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 10:03 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi > > congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? Wolfgang Apart from the fact that your experience and engagements in this area will qualify you to be a part of any such group in any case, I make the following point purely about geographic distribution of CS (civil society) membership of the group and your claim of 'unbalanced selection'. You may have noted from the CSTD Chair's initial note on forming this WG (working group) that it considered five regional areas as follows: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, 'Latin America and Caribbean' and 'Western Europe and other states'. For the membership of the 'Western Europe and other states' category see http://www.un.org/esa/govwest.htm . Now if we go by this categorisation - there is one from Africa, one from Asia, none from Eastern Europe, one from 'Latin America and Caribbean' and two from 'Western Europe and other states' (Avri from the US and Joy from New Zealand). So, no, New Zealand is not in Asia, and there is no over-representation from Asia. (BTW Asia has close to 60 percent of world's population). In fact over representation is from 'Western Asia and other states' group. However, the Chair seemed to have followed the above five region formula only for governmental representation and for civil society he asked simply for 3 from developing countries and 3 from developed, to choose the final 5. Now that you raise the issue, I am not entirely sure if I agree with the civil society focal point having forwarded a slate of 8 - with 3 from developing countries and 5 from developed. That is what can more clearly be called as 'unbalanced selection' i think especially since among the 20 people who applied there were a lot of good names from developing countries. BTW, I dont know whether the imbalance came from the 6 names that emerged out of the 'selection committee process' or from the 2 additions to these names done by the focal point. parminder > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 > An:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > > > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > > Anriette > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 > February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the > Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. > Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as > Chair of the Working Group. > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal > points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in > facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was > very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind > paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. > > There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging > exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in > the Working Group. > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall > govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions > should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The > report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, > including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of > the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and > academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental > organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of > Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations > for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala > Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 03:11:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:41:40 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5C52A761-537F-4F5A-8B4C-34A8B754BA57@hserus.net> I will differ with you to the extent that the nominees representing cs are expected to convey a consensus viewpoint evolved within cs, so in theory at least this regional imbalance should not particularly matter. --srs (iPad) On 27-Mar-2013, at 12:34, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 26 March 2013 10:03 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi >> congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? > > Wolfgang > > Apart from the fact that your experience and engagements in this area will qualify you to be a part of any such group in any case, I make the following point purely about geographic distribution of CS (civil society) membership of the group and your claim of 'unbalanced selection'. > > You may have noted from the CSTD Chair's initial note on forming this WG (working group) that it considered five regional areas as follows: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, 'Latin America and Caribbean' and 'Western Europe and other states'. For the membership of the 'Western Europe and other states' category see http://www.un.org/esa/govwest.htm . > > Now if we go by this categorisation - there is one from Africa, one from Asia, none from Eastern Europe, one from 'Latin America and Caribbean' and two from 'Western Europe and other states' (Avri from the US and Joy from New Zealand). > > So, no, New Zealand is not in Asia, and there is no over-representation from Asia. (BTW Asia has close to 60 percent of world's population). In fact over representation is from 'Western Asia and other states' group. > > However, the Chair seemed to have followed the above five region formula only for governmental representation and for civil society he asked simply for 3 from developing countries and 3 from developed, to choose the final 5. Now that you raise the issue, I am not entirely sure if I agree with the civil society focal point having forwarded a slate of 8 - with 3 from developing countries and 5 from developed. That is what can more clearly be called as 'unbalanced selection' i think especially since among the 20 people who applied there were a lot of good names from developing countries. BTW, I dont know whether the imbalance came from the 6 names that emerged out of the 'selection committee process' or from the 2 additions to these names done by the focal point. > > parminder > > > > > > > >> Thanks >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen >> Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 >> An:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> >> >> >> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been >> selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, >> >> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the >> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 >> February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the >> Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. >> Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as >> Chair of the Working Group. >> >> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal >> points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in >> facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was >> very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind >> paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. >> >> There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial >> relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging >> exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in >> the Working Group. >> >> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall >> govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions >> should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The >> report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. >> >> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, >> including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of >> the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and >> academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental >> organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of >> Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. >> >> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been >> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations >> for the first meeting of the Working Group. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> >> Miguel Palomino de la Gala >> Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 03:16:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:16:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Was Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/Now UN Categorisation Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > But New Zealand's not one of the 22 countries of the Pacific, is it? > > Adam > According to the categorisation when it comes to voting and regional grouping within the UN in New York, Australia and New Zealand are part of the “Western European and Others Group” (WEOG) when it comes to voting and regional grouping at the UN. As is visible the different categorisations for regions and territories can become really mixed up so am not sure which category they chose and which regional standard they used. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > It probably because there is no categorisation for the Pacific. > > Asia - Parminder > Pacific - Joy > > The Pacific region has 22 countries and territories. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:33 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very surprised to >> see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but nobody from Europe (the >> proposal from the focul point was Bill). Any explanation for this unbalanced >> selection? >> >> Thanks >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on >> Enhanced Cooperation >> >> >> >> >> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been >> selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, >> >> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the >> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 >> February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the >> Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. >> Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as >> Chair of the Working Group. >> >> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal >> points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in >> facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was >> very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind >> paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. >> >> There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial >> relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging >> exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in >> the Working Group. >> >> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall >> govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions >> should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The >> report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. >> >> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, >> including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of >> the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and >> academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental >> organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of >> Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. >> >> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been >> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations >> for the first meeting of the Working Group. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> >> Miguel Palomino de la Gala >> Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 17:15:42 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:15:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] 'Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google - Europe - World - The Independent Message-ID: <51520FFE.5000707@gmail.com> ... what is in a name? ... ungoogleable... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ungoogleable-removed-from-list-of-swedish-words-after-row-over-definition-with-google-8550096.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Mar 27 03:36:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:36:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 #Internet Sales Tax In-Reply-To: References: <51514C93.3020200@itforchange.net> <20130327073951.7e8007a3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130327083632.00a139f8@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/03/2013, at 2:39 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >> We we really take on a good thorough discussion on the appropriate > >> global IG architecture that the world needs - which incidentally is > >> the subject matter of the recently constituted CSTD Working Group > >> on Enhanced Cooperation. > >> > >> Can I propose that the co-coordinators look at the possibility of > >> starting such a discussion > > > > I'm not sure what you're asking for here. > > > > Discussions on this list are of course always possible, and don't > > need a coordinator to start them. > > > > But you probably mean something more formal... maybe a process to > > develop an IGC statement? Or something else? > > > If it helps, the Best Bits network (which is, of course, open to > anyone on this list to join, as many of you already have) will be > setting up a working group to try to develop a unified civil society > position (or positions) on this, and we'll have another two-day > meeting ahead of the IGF in Bali to finalise it, along with a > workshop to present it to the other stakeholder groups. Hi Jeremy {personal view:} Sounds good to me. [with IGC coordinator hat on] Please keep this list posted. (Probably you intended to do so anyway, so this note just confirms that that is indeed of interest.) Greetings, Norbert > We'll be > working closely with the CSTD working group of course, and it helps > that four out of the five civil society nominees are past Best Bits > participants. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 03:44:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:44:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC Re: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, i would like to thank all those that have participated in being part of the NomCom and all those that had applied to allow the NomCom to have the difficult task of forwarding the list of names to the Civil Society focal point. The IGC NomCom had selected the following candidates and these names: - Norbert Bollow - Avri Doria - Parminder Jeet Singh - Wolfgang Kleinwachter - Jeremy Malcolm The Selection by the Chairman of the CSTD includes two of the names that were selected/nominated by the IGC and they are Avri Doria and Parminder Jeet Singh. We knew that our list of Nominees would be subject to re-selection by the Civil Society focal point. At this stage, it remains unclear whether there were people within the IGC who had applied through the NomCom also applied directly to the Civil Society focal point. One thing is certain, there is a need for discussions on a cohesive process of gathering Nominees for the purpose of selection. It is also sad that there is no representative from Europe within the CSTD civil society place. I will say that there may be a need for clear framework on selection for such multistakeholder processes - constituency related where issues like categorisation (based on region) is properly teased out. Even within the UN, there are some discrepancies with categorisation if you take the UN New Voting Member Grouping or other categorisations. These are all useful dialogue to have. However, it is important that this does not take away the need to balance and nurture multistakeholderism whilst improving our processes. To this end, let me first congratulate all those that have been selected into the CSTD, yours is an important task and we expect that you will be informing us of the discussions, debates and gathering feedback from those whose voice may not be heard on the floor. I would also like to thank the many men and women who volunteered and expressed their interest in participation within the selection process for the CSTD. This is a testament to the commitment to participate, engage and an ardent desire to want to make the world a better place by contributing to the very important work that the Working Group will do. I would also like to thank Anriette and her Team of representatives from within civil society who participated in the difficult task of selection and forwarding names to the Chair of the CSTD. Post selection, there are several reflections that have been expressed on the list that demands conversation amongst ourselves. Let us start within ourselves, first within the IGC and within Civil Society and discuss how we can improve our processes. I would also like to thank the NomCom under the leadership of Devon Blake who did the extraordinarily difficult task of selecting the IGC's Nominees. I would like to thank Guru who initially led the process and who exercised integrity to step down when a conflict of interest surfaced. This little acts are testament to the commitment to remain accountable and transparent which are a key part of good governance. I would like to take this time to ask our NomCom to please send the final report asap so we can close this matter. Last but not the least, I would like to thank the IGC. Yours sincerely, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro *co-coordinator* On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have been > selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for observers > > Anriette > > > Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, > > As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and Guidelines for the > CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which I distributed on 13 > February 2013, I am pleased to inform you of the final composition of the > Working Group in the attached Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. > Peter Major, Vice-Chair of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as > Chair of the Working Group. > > I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal > points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in > facilitating consultations on their respective representatives, which was > very useful for me in establishing the Working Group, keeping in mind > paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195. > > There were many expressions of interest from people with substantial > relevant expertise, which made selecting the representatives a challenging > exercise. It was not possible to include all requests for membership in > the Working Group. > > The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions shall > govern the work of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions > should be open and transparent and respect all proposals and opinions. The > report of the Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > > I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, > including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of > the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and > academic communities as well as other international and intergovernmental > organizations. Observer privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of > Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. > > Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been > determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding preparations > for the first meeting of the Working Group. > > Sincerely yours, > > > Miguel Palomino de la Gala > Chairman, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 johnlist at gulfbridge.net Wed Mar 27 03:53:42 2013 From: johnlist at gulfbridge.net (John List) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:53:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] MOSSCon in Louisville in May! Submit your proposal this week! Message-ID: <5152A586.70605@gulfbridge.net> Preparations are in full swing for the very first Midwest Open Source Software Conference (MOSSCon), to be held in Louisville on May 18-19. Your help in spreading the word and helping us fill out our schedule of presentations and workshops would be appreciated. This is going to be a great networking event for the whole region! Louisville is in such a central location, it can draw from a very wide area. We have a great venue: the University of Louisville's Student Activities Center, with several large halls, a number of smaller meeting rooms, and plenty of exhibit space available for groups and businesses to make their presence known. We are working on a broadly based "Open" theme, that can include open source hardware, open data, etc., as well as the full gamut of open source software. We already have some super presentations lined up. But there are still plenty of pieces that need to come together. Right now we are concentrating on filling out our schedule with more presentations and workshops. And soliciting sponsors. If you're involved with Open Source (or open anything) you definitely want to be a part of this. I encourage you to consider speaking or doing a presentation or workshop on a subject in your area of interest and/or expertise. Check out the conference website at http://mosscon.org/. Click on "Be a Speaker" for details on submitting your proposal. But get to it! The deadline for submitting your preliminary proposal is this Friday, March 29! http://mosscon.org/ Spread the word and submit your proposal! Thanks, John Hicks -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 27 04:24:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:54:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> Message-ID: <5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 08:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I have been offline for a few days as I was in a rural area with poor > connectivity. Apologies for delay in responding. > > Parminder, this is definitely a good discussion to have, and Nnenna has > already outlined many of the questions that were in my mind as well. > > There were three reasons for my decision to accept the role of focal > point that I would like to share at this point: Hi Anriette I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal point. For selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the focal point was IGC. It was asked to submit 5 names all of which were then put on the WG. I understand that CSTD may this time have approached you since APC is the only NGO working on information society issues that is in general consultative status with the ECOSOC. Having being given this role, APC has the right to take an independent decision on whether to accept it or pass it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to reflect why did it lose that role, it at all it is connected to its profile, stature, visibility or performance. I have something to say on this matter but that separately. > > 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, made > an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by > empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves. This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked to provide all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF improvements. And I agree a movement away from 'black box' approach is good. But as you say, such an improvement must consist in actually 'empowering the concerned stakeholder group' - whereby the alternative process should clearly bear all signs that it is representative, accountable, transarent etc to the concerned stakeholder group. As I said in the set of guidelines I proposed - 'any such role should be taken as a responsibility on the behalf of the concerned stakeholder group'. > Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking > the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil > society to manage this type of process. Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final selection was not the right way to go about it. > > 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the > identification of civil society actors for participation in IG processes > to the IGC. 100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that the WG on IGF improvements worte in its final report that selection of stakeholder reps should not be restricted to one body or group. True for civil society, and true for technical/ academic community and business. > The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are > clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) claim > to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest > in, internet policy and governance. IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree that anyone suggesting any such thing must be countered appropriately. However, IGC is still perhaps the most open and inclusive network in global IG space, while its actual performance capacities have been ham-shackled considerably due to a lot of reasons, but again, on that separately. > With more time I would have liked > to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g. > rotation, and distribute the call even wider. > > 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to > go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community > whose experience and help I could rely on. > > These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and > effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although > transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an incontestable aspect of all such processes. Actual process use may sometime vary and there may be differences on them, but there should be no two views about transparency. > But what is > considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the > IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a transparent > and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best results. > No process will be perfect. > > This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider the > weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other groups - > so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups. Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and representation processes better it is. However, I do not take this thing about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not of 'others'. For instance, I am quite concerned that small developing country businesses should be represented appropriately when business participates in global policy bodies, and I have a right to be so concerned. It is not a private affair of only those who do business. So, neither it is for a set of people to decide who would be defined as 'technical and academic community' for filling a given quota on a public body. It is everybody's business. It is a public issue. > > It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion, > facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe, > able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions. Most important is that those who do take up a public role on behalf of public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe' simply because some accountability and transparency questions are asked - as was done in case of tech/acad community's selection process recently. It is the public's right to do so. It is even worse when some other people begin to feel unsafe on behalf of these people with a public role - a rather strange display of which has recently been made on this list. parminder > Being > critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start > having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others. > > Anriette > > > > > > > > On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the >> process. >> Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work >> once selected. >> >> On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great >> earthquake >> and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it >> should be. >> That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. >> >> And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with you. >> And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, hopefully >> drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to >> reviewing >> the past or existing ones. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> 2013/3/20 Adam Peake >> >>> Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. >>> >>> Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And >>> Nnenna's given some great ideas. >>> >>> But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather >>> than a postmortem on what was and might have been. >>> >>> I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the >>> first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of >>> CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent >>> WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, >>> possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we >>> look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather >>> than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably >>> me included.) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: >>>> The discussion, I think, has starte >>> d. It might have taken off in a >>>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >>>> >>>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >>>> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >>> methodology. >>>> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we >>> still >>>> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. >>>> >>>> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, >>> but >>>> at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for >>>> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >>>> >>>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for >>>> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >>> document, >>>> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be >>> VERY >>>> helpful. >>>> >>>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >>>> >>>> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the >>> CSTD, >>>> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette >>> and >>>> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in >>> so >>>> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a >>> "a >>>> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". >>>> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted >>> to >>>> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. >>>> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear >>>> others on this though >>>> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should >>> we >>>> discuss a minimum quota? >>>> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any >>>> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the >>> same >>>> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we >>> strike >>>> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths >>>> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues >>> and >>>> manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will >>> arrive >>>> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >>> "qualified" >>>> people... >>>> What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made >>>> between experience and representation, or between experience and >>> opportunity >>>> for growth? >>>> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to >>>> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say >>> "we" >>>> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous >>>> with "people who can travel and be there physically"? >>>> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need >>> to >>>> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has >>>> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >>>> ..... many more...:) >>>> >>>> >>>> Nnennna >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: parminder >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. >>>> >>>> I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for >>> forwarding my >>>> name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed >>> for >>>> the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or >>>> after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from >>> the >>>> IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. >>>> >>>> We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final >>>> selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, >>> do >>>> not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to >>> contribute - >>>> to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we >>> will >>>> get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help >>> anyone >>>> in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even >>> better >>>> way. >>>> >>>> I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do >>> not >>>> appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion >>> only >>>> after the process is completed. >>>> >>>> I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by >>>> some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too >>>> easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and >>>> against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We >>> have >>>> a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not >>>> directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our >>>> internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much >>> prefer >>>> that we overdo it rather than underdo it. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the >>> chances >>>> of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no >>>> one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... >>>> However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have >>> already >>>> been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to >>> postpone >>>> raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report >>> by >>>> the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for >>>> this working group before I released the names of the candidates. >>>> >>>> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person >>>> did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 >>>> names. >>>> >>>> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on >>>> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put >>>> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their >>>> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in >>>> preselecting the IGC nominees. >>>> >>>> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted >>>> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: >>>> >>>> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) >>>> >>>> Avri Doria (N America) >>>> Carlos Afonso (A America) >>>> Don McClean (N America) >>>> Grace Githaiga (Africa) >>>> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) >>>> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) >>>> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) >>>> William Drake (Europe) >>>> >>>> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from >>>> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who >>>> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise >>>> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of >>>> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>>> >>>> *Background* >>>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >>>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >>>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >>>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>>> >>>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >>>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >>>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >>>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>>> >>>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >>>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >>>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>>> >>>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>>> >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >>>> convenor of the group. >>>> >>>> >>>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >>>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>>> >>>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >>>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >>>> >>>> *Nominees* >>>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >>>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >>>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >>>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>>> >>>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >>>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>>> >>>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >>>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >>>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >>>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>>> >>>> *Scoring process* >>>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >>>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >>>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >>>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>>> >>>> >>>> The criteria were as follows: >>>> >>>> >>>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>>> >>>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>>> >>>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >>>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>>> conflicting interests. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Shortlist* >>>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >>>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>>> regional and gender balance. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >>>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >>>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure >>>> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >>>> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>>> >>>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >>>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>>> >>>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >>>> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >>>> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >>>> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >>>> the broader internet community. >>>> >>>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >>>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >>>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Mar 27 04:40:27 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:40:27 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: But these discussions in the GGE have two problems: (1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside participation; (2) Cyber warfare and security issues get discussed in isolation from connected cyber issues of human rights, big data, big Internet business, cross border data flows and so on. Wolfgang: I fully agree. If it comes to security issues "MSs" is just lip service. Parminder: A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation. Wolfgang: I disagree. To move it from one governmental body to another governmental body is not the solution and a CTRP has too many risks for collatoral damages. My proposal would be to bring those issues to the IGF agenda (both to the Bali IGF as well as to the regional IGFs in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa etc.). The Tallin Manual is a good justification to bring more light into the darkness of those discussions. We could start (like in the GGE) to discuss "confidence building measures" and to move forward to the hidden issues of the risk of a new cyber arms race and its implocations for a free, open, secure and borderless Internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 05:01:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:01:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Taibbi> Wikileaks Was Just a Preview: We're Headed for an Even Bigger Showdown Over Secrets Message-ID: <5152B56F.3060207@gmail.com> the coming extinction of the Kantian enlightened individual, one of the bases of the US constitution... of course some are of the opinion this has happened already...? Wikileaks Was Just a Preview: We're Headed for an Even Bigger Showdown Over Secrets POSTED: March 22, 10:53 AM ET Bradley Manning U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning Alex Wong/Getty Images I went yesterday to a screening of /We Steal Secrets/, Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney's brilliant new documentary about Wikileaks. The movie is beautiful and profound, an incredible story that's about many things all at once, including the incredible Shakespearean narrative that is the life of Julian Assange, a free-information radical who has become an uncompromising guarder of secrets. I'll do a full review in a few months, when /We Steal Secrets /comes out, but I bring it up now because the whole issue of secrets and how we keep them is increasingly in the news, to the point where I think we're headed for a major confrontation between the government and the public over the issue, one bigger in scale than even the Wikileaks episode. We've seen the battle lines forming for years now. It's increasingly clear that governments, major corporations, banks, universities and other such bodies view the defense of their secrets as a desperate matter of institutional survival, so much so that the state has gone to extraordinary lengths to punish and/or threaten to punish anyone who so much as tiptoes across the informational line. This is true not only in the case of Wikileaks -- and especially the real//subject of Gibney's film, Private Bradley Manning, who in an incredible act of institutional vengeance is being charged with aiding the enemy (among other crimes) and could, theoretically, receive a death sentence . Did the Mainstream Media Fail Bradley Manning? There's also the horrific case of Aaron Swartz , a genius who helped create the technology behind Reddit at the age of 14, who earlier this year hanged himself after the government threatened him with 35 years in jail for downloading a bunch of academic documents from an MIT server. Then there's the case of Sergey Aleynikov , the Russian computer programmer who allegedly stole the High-Frequency Trading program belonging to Goldman, Sachs (Aleynikov worked at Goldman), a program which prosecutors in open court admitted could, "in the wrong hands," be used to "manipulate markets." Aleynikov spent a year in jail awaiting trial, was convicted, had his sentence overturned, was freed, and has since been re-arrested by a government seemingly determined to make an example out of him. The Brilliant Life and Tragic Death of Aaron Swartz And most recently, there's the Matthew Keys case, in which a Reuters social media editor was charged by the government with conspiring with the hacker group Anonymous to alter a /Los Angeles Times /headline in December 2010. The change in the headline? It ended up reading , "Pressure Builds in House to Elect CHIPPY 1337," Chippy being the name of another hacker group accused of defacing a video game publisher's website. Keys is charged with crimes that carry up to 25 years in prison, although the likelihood is that he'd face far less than that if convicted. Still, it seems like an insane amount of pressure to apply, given the other types of crimes (of, say, the HSBC variety) where stiff sentences haven't even been threatened, much less imposed. A common thread runs through all of these cases. On the one hand, the motivations for these information-stealers seem extremely diverse: You have people who appear to be primarily motivated by traditional whistleblower concerns (Manning, who never sought money and was obviously initially moved by the moral horror aroused by the material he was seeing, falls into that category for me), you have the merely mischievous (the Keys case seems to fall in this area), there are those who either claim to be or actually are free-information ideologues (Assange and Swartz seem more in this realm), and then there are other cases where the motive might have been money (Aleynikov, who was allegedly leaving Goldman to join a rival trading startup, might be among those). But in all//of these cases, the government pursued maximum punishments and generally took zero-tolerance approaches to plea negotiations. These prosecutions reflected an obvious institutional terror of letting the public see the sausage-factory locked behind the closed doors not only of the state, but of banks and universities and other such institutional pillars of society. As Gibney pointed out in his movie, this is a /Wizard of Oz/ moment, where we are being warned not to look behind the curtain. What will we find out? We already know that our armies mass-murder women and children in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, that our soldiers joke about smoldering bodies from the safety of gunships, that some of our closest diplomatic allies starve and repress their own citizens, and we may even have gotten a glimpse or two of a banking system that uses computerized insider trading programs to steal from everyone who has an IRA or a mutual fund or any stock at all by manipulating markets like the NYSE. These fervent, desperate prosecutions suggest that there's more awfulness under there, things that are worse, and there is a determination to not let us see what those things are. Most recently, we've seen that determination in the furor over Barack Obama's drone assassination program and the so-called "kill list" that is associated with it. Weeks ago, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul -- whom I've previously railed against as one of the biggest self-aggrandizing jackasses in politics -- pulled a widely-derided but, I think, absolutely righteous Frank Capra act on the Senate floor, executing a one-man filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee, John Brennan. Paul had been mortified when he received a letter from Eric Holder refusing to rule out drone strikes on American soil in "extraordinary" circumstances like a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor. Paul refused to yield until he extracted a guarantee that no American could be assassinated by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime. He got his guarantee, but the way the thing is written doesn't fill one with anything like confidence. Eric Holder's letter to Paul reads like the legal disclaimer on a pack of unfiltered cigarettes: Dear Senator Paul, It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the president have the additional authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer is no. Sincerely, Eric Holder You could drive a convoy of tanker trucks through the loopholes in that letter. Not to worry, though, this past week, word has come out via Congress -- the White House won't tell us anything -- that no Americans are on its infamous kill list. The /National Journal/'s report on this story offered a similarly comical sort of non-reassurance: The White House has wrapped its kill list in secrecy and already the United States has killed four Americans in drone strikes. Only one of them, senior al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki, was the intended target, according to U.S. officials. The others -- including Awlaki's teenage son -- were collateral damage, killed because they were too near a person being targeted. But no more Americans are in line for such killings -- at least not yet. "There is no list where Americans are on the list," House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers told National Journal. Still, he suggested, that could change. "There is no list where Americans are on the list" -- even the language used here sounds like a cheap Orwell knockoff (although, to be fair, so does /V for Vendetta/, which has unfortunately provided the model for the modern protest aesthetic ). It's not an accident that so much of this story is starting to sound like farce. The idea that we have to beg and plead and pull Capra-esque stunts in the Senate just to find out whether or not our government has "asserted the legal authority" (this preposterous phrase is beginning to leak into news coverage with alarming regularity) to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without trial would be laughable, were it not for the obvious fact that such lines are in danger of really being crossed, if they haven't been crossed already. This morning, an Emory University law professor named Mary Dudziak wrote an op-ed in the /Times/ //in which she pointed out several disturbing aspects to the drone-attack policy. It's bad enough, she writes, that the Obama administration is considering moving the program from the CIA to the Defense Department. (Which, Dudziak notes, "would do nothing to confer legitimacy to the drone strikes. The legitimacy problem comes from the secrecy itself --- not which entity secretly does the killing.") It's even worse that the administration is citing Nixon's infamous bombing of Cambodia as part of its legal precedent. But beyond that, Obama's lawyers used bad information in their white paper : On Page 4 of the unclassified 16-page "white paper," Justice Department lawyers tried to refute the argument that international law does not support extending armed conflict outside a battlefield. They cited as historical authority a speech given May 28, 1970, by John R. Stevenson, then the top lawyer for the State Department, following the United States' invasion of Cambodia. Since 1965, "the territory of Cambodia has been used by North Vietnam as a base of military operations," he told the New York City Bar Association. "It long ago reached a level that would have justified us in taking appropriate measures of self-defense on the territory of Cambodia. However, except for scattered instances of returning fire across the border, we refrained until April from taking such action in Cambodia." But, Dudziak notes, there is a catch: In fact, Nixon had begun his secret bombing of Cambodia more than a year earlier. (It is not clear whether Mr. Stevenson knew this.) So the Obama administration's lawyers have cited a statement that was patently false. Now, this "white paper" of Obama's is already of dubious legality at best. The idea that the President can simply write a paper expanding presidential power into extralegal assassination without asking the explicit permission of, well, somebody, anyway, is absurd from the start. Now you add to that the complication of the paper being based in part on some half-assed, hastily-cobbled-together, factually lacking precedent, and the Obama drone-attack rationale becomes like all rationales of blunt-force, repressive power ever written -- plainly ridiculous, the stuff of bad comedy, like the Russian military superpower invading tiny South Ossetia cloaked in hysterical claims of self-defense. Why Rand Paul's Filibuster Matters The Wikileaks episode was just an early preview of the inevitable confrontation between the citizens of the industrialized world and the giant, increasingly secretive bureaucracies that support them. As some of Gibney's interview subjects point out in his movie, the experts in this field, the people who worked on information security in the Pentagon and the CIA, have known for a long time that the day would come when all of our digitized secrets would spill out somewhere. But the secret-keepers got lucky with Wikileaks. They successfully turned the story into one about Julian Assange and his personal failings, and headed off the confrontation with the major news organizations that were, for a time, his allies. But that was just a temporary reprieve. The secrets are out there and everyone from hackers to journalists to U.S. senators are digging in search of them. Sooner or later, there's going to be a pitched battle, one where the state won't be able to peel off one lone Julian Assange or Bradley Manning and batter him into nothingness. Next time around, it'll be a Pentagon Papers-style constitutional crisis, where the public's legitimate right to know will be pitted head-to-head with presidents, generals and CEOs. My suspicion is that this story will turn out to be less of a simplistic narrative about Orwellian repression than a mortifying journey of self-discovery. There are all sorts of things we both know and don't know about the processes that keep our society running. We know children in Asia are being beaten to keep our sneakers and furniture cheap, we know our access to oil and other raw materials is being secured only by the cooperation of corrupt and vicious dictators, and we've also known for a while now that the anti-terror program they say we need to keep our airports and reservoirs safe involves mass campaigns of extralegal detention and assassination. We haven't had to openly ratify any of these policies because the secret-keepers have done us the favor of making these awful moral choices for us. But the stink is rising to the surface. It's all coming out. And when it isn't Julian Assange the next time but /The New York Times, Der Spiegel /and /The Guardian /standing in the line of fire, the state will probably lose, just as it lost in the Pentagon Papers case, because those organizations will be careful to only publish materials clearly in the public interest -- there's no conceivable legal justification for keeping us from knowing the policies of our own country (although stranger things have happened). When that happens, we'll be left standing face-to-face with the reality of how our state functions. Do we want to do that? We still haven't taken a very close look at even the Bradley Manning material, and my guess is because we just don't want to. There were thousands of outrages in those files, any one of which would have a caused a My-Lai-style uproar decades ago. Did you hear the one about how American troops murdered four women and five children in Iraq in 2006, including a woman over 70 and an infant under five months old, with all the kids under five? All of them were handcuffed and shot in the head. We later called in an airstrike to cover it up, apparently. But it barely registered a blip on the American consciousness. What if it we're forced to look at all of this for real next time, and what if it turns out we can't accept it? What if murder and corruption is what's holding it all together? I personally don't believe that's true -- I believe it all needs to come out and we need to rethink everything together, and we can find a less totally evil way of living -- but this is going to be the implicit argument from the secret-keeping side when this inevitable confrontation comes. They will say to us, in essence, "It's the only way. And you don't want to know." And a lot of us won't. It's fascinating, profound stuff. We don't want to know, but increasingly it seems we can't not know, either. Sooner or later, something is going to have to give. Related * The New Political Prisoners: Leakers, Hackers and Activists Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/wikileaks-was-just-a-preview-were-headed-for-an-even-bigger-showdown-over-secrets-20130322#ixzz2OjFzexaU Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: manning-600-1363967087.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 144806 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 27 05:50:39 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:50:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] preliminary workshop proposals In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de > References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Looks like 216 proposals received. And can expect more, the preliminary process only a required for those who organized workshops in 2011 and 2012, although looks like a lot of newcomers did submit preliminary proposals: question is, how will MAG judge these? 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 joy at apc.org Wed Mar 27 06:27:10 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:27:10 +1300 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5152C97E.1080507@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all - congrats to other appointees and nominees and for the supportive comments, it is humbling to be selected for this working group and I look forward to our task. I note the discussion about "New Zealand" and welcome it (so rarely does New Zealand get such coverage :-) - and thanks Sala for your comments. I'd offer that both within and outside various forums "New Zealand" is frequently deemed part of different regional groups: Pacific in some contexts (Pacific IGF), AsiaPacific in others (APTLD and APNIC), Western Europe and Others in others (particularly as a former British colony, member of the commonwealth, OECD and so on) - sometimes this is the categorisation placed upon the country, sometimes one chosen . but in any event, so far as I am aware, my nomination is not for regional representation but rather to provide civil society views, which I am sure all of us will be doing our very best to do. regards Joy On 27/03/2013 8:04 p.m., parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 26 March 2013 10:03 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very >> surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but >> nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). >> Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? > > Wolfgang > > Apart from the fact that your experience and engagements in this > area will qualify you to be a part of any such group in any case, I > make the following point purely about geographic distribution of CS > (civil society) membership of the group and your claim of > 'unbalanced selection'. > > You may have noted from the CSTD Chair's initial note on forming > this WG (working group) that it considered five regional areas as > follows: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, 'Latin America and > Caribbean' and 'Western Europe and other states'. For the > membership of the 'Western Europe and other states' category see > http://www.un.org/esa/govwest.htm . > > Now if we go by this categorisation - there is one from Africa, one > from Asia, none from Eastern Europe, one from 'Latin America and > Caribbean' and two from 'Western Europe and other states' (Avri > from the US and Joy from New Zealand). > > So, no, New Zealand is not in Asia, and there is no > over-representation from Asia. (BTW Asia has close to 60 percent of > world's population). In fact over representation is from 'Western > Asia and other states' group. > > However, the Chair seemed to have followed the above five region > formula only for governmental representation and for civil society > he asked simply for 3 from developing countries and 3 from > developed, to choose the final 5. Now that you raise the issue, I > am not entirely sure if I agree with the civil society focal point > having forwarded a slate of 8 - with 3 from developing countries > and 5 from developed. That is what can more clearly be called as > 'unbalanced selection' i think especially since among the 20 people > who applied there were a lot of good names from developing > countries. BTW, I dont know whether the imbalance came from the 6 > names that emerged out of the 'selection committee process' or from > the 2 additions to these names done by the focal point. > > parminder > > > > > > > >> Thanks wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von >> Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 >> An:governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final >> composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> >> >> >> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have >> been selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for >> observers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, >> >> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and >> Guidelines for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, >> which I distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform >> you of the final composition of the Working Group in the attached >> Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair >> of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the >> Working Group. >> >> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated >> focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their >> efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective >> representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the >> Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General >> Assembly resolution 67/195. >> >> There were many expressions of interest from people with >> substantial relevant expertise, which made selecting the >> representatives a challenging exercise. It was not possible to >> include all requests for membership in the Working Group. >> >> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional >> Commissions shall govern the work of the Working Group on >> Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions should be open and transparent >> and respect all proposals and opinions. The report of the Working >> Group will be adopted by consensus. >> >> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for >> observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not >> they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, >> civil society, technical and academic communities as well as >> other international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer >> privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of >> the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. >> >> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been >> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding >> preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> >> Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science >> and Technology for Development >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRUsl9AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqcccIAIrSC/1iXqwOqRl9OTZO8FXK zozs+3yg3UdPpnLrQyGTIGg4sPDfaLlX5XKsNflgsaCZEdsqlpVyML8YSsSyobL+ 9Qi5fTOjSRo1cGfBSJbN8cAirM2eYC0c+i2m9RxcE8Lx8yHdDyrtz5HxiGyv+Yj/ 96vbZfWvAHqHiiGO8zaPZJHpAUg+UFBESJD5u2R12fdcxHNzRKnt1KDo84ZH0K1w MBTw7qlkqBCXOJgvWN3vmWxzDStqtlU59ZU2D3kWxSVOF2TW2WlfEK0QEsK0W1tv LH89iyPe3W4vtz69XlAoIGZu5BO8PZZo6Ilj5EQmVdzH+HPulzJsawdK0KbshK4= =Ln/Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 27 06:39:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:09:20 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5152CC58.8090201@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 27 March 2013 02:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation. > > Wolfgang: > I disagree. To move it from one governmental body to another governmental body is not the solution and a CTRP has too many risks for collatoral damages. My proposal would be to bring those issues to the IGF agenda (both to the Bali IGF as well as to the regional IGFs in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa etc.). The Tallin Manual is a good justification to bring more light into the darkness of those discussions. We could start (like in the GGE) to discuss "confidence building measures" and to move forward to the hidden issues of the risk of a new cyber arms race and its implocations for a free, open, secure and borderless Internet. Sure. And what happens after the IGF has discussed this issue? I remain very unclear here. At the CSTD WG on IGF Improvements, India proposed strengthening the IGF including giving some kinds of recommendations (which would still have required some bodies to take up and work on these recs), and you were a member of the WG. Not many showed much enthusiasm for that proposal. You said it is good enough if IGF produced messages, which are a set of short lines that can be many - and different ones for the same issue. Now, please tell me how such twitter-ish messages can solve the very real-life matters of life and death that many have pointed out in the discussion on 'Tallin's Manual' on cyber warfare? And also why when you participate in CoE and OECD processes, you never recommend that these rich and powerful countries' groups should abolish their inter-governmental councils that do the real work, and rely instead only on open discursive forums for all policy work? Please be explicit. Why do such recommendations surface only when developing countries seek an equal place at the global policy table? 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 09:33:33 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:33:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus Message-ID: And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 27 13:50:43 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. Where is the technical community when we need it? :) frt rgds --c.a. On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 > Deirdre > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Mar 27 15:56:06 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:56:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Durban & Tunis References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5152CC58.8090201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi friends is anybody aware whether Internet Governance issues where on the agenda of the World Social Forum in Tunis and the BRICS Summit in Durban? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 16:02:31 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:02:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC News - Privacy 'impossible' with Google Glass warn campaigners Message-ID: <51535057.5090205@gmail.com> doubleplus(un)good... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21937145 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 16:21:03 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:21:03 +1100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I think all cyber wars should not be started until there is multi-stakeholder support and both gender and geographical balance of participants. And yes, developing countries must be involved in every cyber war. and academics. -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Parminder: But these discussions in the GGE have two problems: (1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside participation; (2) Cyber warfare and security issues get discussed in isolation from connected cyber issues of human rights, big data, big Internet business, cross border data flows and so on. Wolfgang: I fully agree. If it comes to security issues "MSs" is just lip service. Parminder: A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation. Wolfgang: I disagree. To move it from one governmental body to another governmental body is not the solution and a CTRP has too many risks for collatoral damages. My proposal would be to bring those issues to the IGF agenda (both to the Bali IGF as well as to the regional IGFs in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa etc.). The Tallin Manual is a good justification to bring more light into the darkness of those discussions. We could start (like in the GGE) to discuss "confidence building measures" and to move forward to the hidden issues of the risk of a new cyber arms race and its implocations for a free, open, secure and borderless Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 16:25:27 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:25:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? In-Reply-To: References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <42B3F4603FFB4120BA93348391FF1108@Toshiba> but more seriously - I think a workshop is a good idea, but of course we have missed the first deadline. There are a couple of cyber-conflict workshops already so we would need to define the scope carefully. I have a few thoughts on this if other parties are interested to discuss - perhaps better off list? Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:21 AM To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? I think all cyber wars should not be started until there is multi-stakeholder support and both gender and geographical balance of participants. And yes, developing countries must be involved in every cyber war. and academics. -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention? Parminder: But these discussions in the GGE have two problems: (1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside participation; (2) Cyber warfare and security issues get discussed in isolation from connected cyber issues of human rights, big data, big Internet business, cross border data flows and so on. Wolfgang: I fully agree. If it comes to security issues "MSs" is just lip service. Parminder: A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation. Wolfgang: I disagree. To move it from one governmental body to another governmental body is not the solution and a CTRP has too many risks for collatoral damages. My proposal would be to bring those issues to the IGF agenda (both to the Bali IGF as well as to the regional IGFs in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa etc.). The Tallin Manual is a good justification to bring more light into the darkness of those discussions. We could start (like in the GGE) to discuss "confidence building measures" and to move forward to the hidden issues of the risk of a new cyber arms race and its implocations for a free, open, secure and borderless Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 27 16:58:17 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:58:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] Durban & Tunis In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <59365225A0C94109999B5BBD067479FC@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1D751A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <51514263.2080703@itforchange.net> <51519D21.1000701@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51527960.2030100@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317B7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5152CC58.8090201@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317C1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <51535D69.4000401@cafonso.ca> Grande Wolf, I might have missed something, but the official Tunis WSF agenda shows only one activity (of a total of 962!) on Internet issues, which is this one: ------------------ March 29 -- 13h00-15h30 Surveillance and Politics on the Web World Wide Web Consortium Salle : I104 Description The Web is increasingly central to our lives and the future of struggle. In order to resist repression, it is increasing critical to secure our Web connections against digital surveillance. This workshop will begin by giving a basic overview of how ordinary people can use the Web and related services more securely via encrypted email, VPNs, and Tor. The Web is also increasingly important to understand as a terrain of political struggle, and central to how capitalism transforms itself in order to overcome its current crisis. So we will discuss how Internet Service Providers, telcos, and companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter are profiting from our personal data and how this can form the basis for a new political struggle. Mot clé: web internet security rights digital surveillance Activité étendue: Votre activité sera à organisée à Tunis mais vous seriez intéressés à " l’élargir " grâce à Internet ------------------ The communication commission of the WSF is mainly focused on community radio issues. frt rgds --c.a. On 03/27/2013 04:56 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi friends > > is anybody aware whether Internet Governance issues where on the agenda of the World Social Forum in Tunis and the BRICS Summit in Durban? > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 17:37:34 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:37:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Taibbi> Wikileaks Was Just a Preview: We're Headed for an Even Bigger Showdown Over Secrets In-Reply-To: <5152B56F.3060207@gmail.com> References: <5152B56F.3060207@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > the coming extinction of the Kantian enlightened individual, one of > the bases of the US constitution... of course some are of the opinion this > has happened already...? > > Wikileaks Was Just a Preview: We're Headed for an Even Bigger Showdown > Over Secrets > > POSTED: March 22, 10:53 AM ET > > [image: Bradley Manning] > U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning > Alex Wong/Getty Images > > I went yesterday to a screening of *We Steal Secrets*, Oscar-winning > director Alex Gibney's brilliant new documentary about Wikileaks. The movie > is beautiful and profound, an incredible story that's about many things all > at once, including the incredible Shakespearean narrative that is the life > of Julian Assange, a free-information radical who has become an > uncompromising guarder of secrets. > > I'll do a full review in a few months, when *We Steal Secrets > *comes out, but I bring it up now because the whole issue of secrets and > how we keep them is increasingly in the news, to the point where I think > we're headed for a major confrontation between the government and the > public over the issue, one bigger in scale than even the Wikileaks episode. > > We've seen the battle lines forming for years now. It's increasingly clear > that governments, major corporations, banks, universities and other such > bodies view the defense of their secrets as a desperate matter of > institutional survival, so much so that the state has gone to extraordinary > lengths to punish and/or threaten to punish anyone who so much as tiptoes > across the informational line. > > This is true not only in the case of Wikileaks – and especially the real* > *subject of Gibney's film, Private Bradley Manning, who in an incredible > act of institutional vengeance is being charged with aiding the enemy > (among other crimes) and could, theoretically, receive a death sentence > . > > Did the Mainstream Media Fail Bradley Manning? > > There's also the horrific case of Aaron Swartz, > a genius who helped create the technology behind Reddit at the age of 14, > who earlier this year hanged himself after the government threatened him > with 35 years in jail for downloading a bunch of academic documents from an > MIT server. Then there's the case of Sergey Aleynikov, > the Russian computer programmer who allegedly stole the High-Frequency > Trading program belonging to Goldman, Sachs (Aleynikov worked at Goldman), > a program which prosecutors in open court admitted could, "in the wrong > hands," be used to "manipulate markets." > > Aleynikov spent a year in jail awaiting trial, was convicted, had his > sentence overturned, was freed, and has since been re-arrested by a > government seemingly determined to make an example out of him. > > The Brilliant Life and Tragic Death of Aaron Swartz > > And most recently, there's the Matthew Keys case, in which a Reuters > social media editor was charged by the government with conspiring with the > hacker group Anonymous to alter a *Los Angeles Times *headline in > December 2010. The change in the headline? It ended up reading, > "Pressure Builds in House to Elect CHIPPY 1337," Chippy being the name of > another hacker group accused of defacing a video game publisher's website. > > Keys is charged with crimes that carry up to 25 years in prison, although > the likelihood is that he'd face far less than that if convicted. Still, it > seems like an insane amount of pressure to apply, given the other types of > crimes (of, say, the HSBC variety) where stiff sentences haven't even been > threatened, much less imposed. > > A common thread runs through all of these cases. On the one hand, the > motivations for these information-stealers seem extremely diverse: You have > people who appear to be primarily motivated by traditional whistleblower > concerns (Manning, who never sought money and was obviously initially moved > by the moral horror aroused by the material he was seeing, falls into that > category for me), you have the merely mischievous (the Keys case seems to > fall in this area), there are those who either claim to be or actually are > free-information ideologues (Assange and Swartz seem more in this realm), > and then there are other cases where the motive might have been money > (Aleynikov, who was allegedly leaving Goldman to join a rival trading > startup, might be among those). > > But in all* *of these cases, the government pursued maximum punishments > and generally took zero-tolerance approaches to plea negotiations. These > prosecutions reflected an obvious institutional terror of letting the > public see the sausage-factory locked behind the closed doors not only of > the state, but of banks and universities and other such institutional > pillars of society. As Gibney pointed out in his movie, this is a *Wizard > of Oz* moment, where we are being warned not to look behind the curtain. > > What will we find out? We already know that our armies mass-murder women > and childrenin places like Iraq and Afghanistan, that our soldiers joke > about smoldering bodies from the safety of gunships, that some of our closest > diplomatic alliesstarve and repress their own citizens, and we may even have gotten a > glimpse or two of a banking system that uses computerized insider trading > programsto steal from everyone who has an IRA or a mutual fund or any stock at all > by manipulating markets like the NYSE. > > These fervent, desperate prosecutions suggest that there's more awfulness > under there, things that are worse, and there is a determination to not let > us see what those things are. Most recently, we've seen that determination > in the furor over Barack Obama's drone assassination program and the > so-called "kill list" that is associated with it. > > Weeks ago, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul – whom I've previously railed > against as one of the biggest self-aggrandizing jackasses in politics – > pulled a widely-derided but, I think, absolutely righteous Frank Capra acton the Senate floor, executing a one-man filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee, > John Brennan. > > Paul had been mortified when he received a letter from Eric Holder refusing > to rule out drone strikes on American soilin "extraordinary" circumstances like a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor. Paul > refused to yield until he extracted a guarantee that no American could be > assassinated by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a > crime. > > He got his guarantee, but the way the thing is written doesn't fill one > with anything like confidence. Eric Holder's letter to Paulreads like the legal disclaimer on a pack of unfiltered cigarettes: > > Dear Senator Paul, > > It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional > question: "Does the president have the additional authority to use a > weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American > soil?" The answer is no. > > Sincerely, > > Eric Holder > > You could drive a convoy of tanker trucks through the loopholes in that > letter. Not to worry, though, this past week, word has come out via > Congress – the White House won't tell us anything – that no Americansare on its infamous kill list. The > *National Journal*'s report on this story offered a similarly comical > sort of non-reassurance: > > The White House has wrapped its kill list in secrecy and already the > United States has killed four Americans in drone strikes. Only one of them, > senior al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki, was the intended target, > according to U.S. officials. The others – including Awlaki's teenage son – > were collateral damage, killed because they were too near a person being > targeted. > > But no more Americans are in line for such killings – at least not yet. > "There is no list where Americans are on the list," House Intelligence > Chairman Mike Rogers told National Journal. Still, he suggested, that could > change. > > "There is no list where Americans are on the list" – even the language > used here sounds like a cheap Orwell knockoff (although, to be fair, so > does *V for Vendetta*, which has unfortunately provided the model for the > modern protest aesthetic ). > It's not an accident that so much of this story is starting to sound like > farce. The idea that we have to beg and plead and pull Capra-esque stunts > in the Senate just to find out whether or not our government has "asserted > the legal authority" (this preposterous phrase is beginning to leak into > news coverage with alarming regularity) to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil > without trial would be laughable, were it not for the obvious fact that > such lines are in danger of really being crossed, if they haven't been > crossed already. > > This morning, an Emory University law professor named Mary Dudziak wrote > an op-ed in the *Times* > * *in which she pointed out several disturbing aspects to the > drone-attack policy. It's bad enough, she writes, that the Obama > administration is considering moving the program from the CIA to the > Defense Department. (Which, Dudziak notes, "would do nothing to confer > legitimacy to the drone strikes. The legitimacy problem comes from the > secrecy itself — not which entity secretly does the killing.") It's even > worse that the administration is citing Nixon's infamous bombing of > Cambodia as part of its legal precedent. > > But beyond that, Obama's lawyers used bad information in their white paper > : > > On Page 4 of the unclassified 16-page "white paper," Justice Department > lawyers tried to refute the argument that international law does not > support extending armed conflict outside a battlefield. They cited as > historical authority a speech given May 28, 1970, by John R. Stevenson, > then the top lawyer for the State Department, following the United States' > invasion of Cambodia. > > Since 1965, "the territory of Cambodia has been used by North Vietnam as a > base of military operations," he told the New York City Bar Association. > "It long ago reached a level that would have justified us in taking > appropriate measures of self-defense on the territory of Cambodia. However, > except for scattered instances of returning fire across the border, we > refrained until April from taking such action in Cambodia." > > But, Dudziak notes, there is a catch: > > In fact, Nixon had begun his secret bombing of Cambodia more than a year > earlier. (It is not clear whether Mr. Stevenson knew this.) So the Obama > administration's lawyers have cited a statement that was patently false. > > Now, this "white paper" of Obama's is already of dubious legality at best. > The idea that the President can simply write a paper expanding presidential > power into extralegal assassination without asking the explicit permission > of, well, somebody, anyway, is absurd from the start. Now you add to that > the complication of the paper being based in part on some half-assed, > hastily-cobbled-together, factually lacking precedent, and the Obama > drone-attack rationale becomes like all rationales of blunt-force, > repressive power ever written – plainly ridiculous, the stuff of bad > comedy, like the Russian military superpower invading tiny South Ossetia > cloaked in hysterical claims of self-defense. > > Why Rand Paul's Filibuster Matters > > The Wikileaks episode was just an early preview of the inevitable > confrontation between the citizens of the industrialized world and the > giant, increasingly secretive bureaucracies that support them. As some of > Gibney's interview subjects point out in his movie, the experts in this > field, the people who worked on information security in the Pentagon and > the CIA, have known for a long time that the day would come when all of our > digitized secrets would spill out somewhere. > > But the secret-keepers got lucky with Wikileaks. They successfully turned > the story into one about Julian Assange and his personal failings, and > headed off the confrontation with the major news organizations that were, > for a time, his allies. > > But that was just a temporary reprieve. The secrets are out there and > everyone from hackers to journalists to U.S. senators are digging in search > of them. Sooner or later, there's going to be a pitched battle, one where > the state won't be able to peel off one lone Julian Assange or Bradley > Manning and batter him into nothingness. Next time around, it'll be a > Pentagon Papers-style constitutional crisis, where the public's legitimate > right to know will be pitted head-to-head with presidents, generals and > CEOs. > > My suspicion is that this story will turn out to be less of a simplistic > narrative about Orwellian repression than a mortifying journey of > self-discovery. There are all sorts of things we both know and don't know > about the processes that keep our society running. We know children in Asia > are being beaten to keep our sneakers and furniture cheap, we know our > access to oil and other raw materials is being secured only by the > cooperation of corrupt and vicious dictators, and we've also known for a > while now that the anti-terror program they say we need to keep our > airports and reservoirs safe involves mass campaigns of extralegal > detention and assassination. > > We haven't had to openly ratify any of these policies because the > secret-keepers have done us the favor of making these awful moral choices > for us. > > But the stink is rising to the surface. It's all coming out. And when it > isn't Julian Assange the next time but *The New York Times, Der Spiegel *and > *The Guardian *standing in the line of fire, the state will probably > lose, just as it lost in the Pentagon Papers case, because those > organizations will be careful to only publish materials clearly in the > public interest – there's no conceivable legal justification for keeping us > from knowing the policies of our own country (although stranger things have > happened). > > When that happens, we'll be left standing face-to-face with the reality of > how our state functions. Do we want to do that? We still haven't taken a > very close look at even the Bradley Manning material, and my guess is > because we just don't want to. There were thousands of outrages in those > files, any one of which would have a caused a My-Lai-style uproar decades > ago. > > Did you hear the one about how American troops murdered four women and > five childrenin Iraq in 2006, including a woman over 70 and an infant under five months > old, with all the kids under five? All of them were handcuffed and shot in > the head. We later called in an airstrike to cover it up, apparently. But > it barely registered a blip on the American consciousness. > > What if it we're forced to look at all of this for real next time, and > what if it turns out we can't accept it? What if murder and corruption is > what's holding it all together? I personally don't believe that's true – I > believe it all needs to come out and we need to rethink everything > together, and we can find a less totally evil way of living – but this is > going to be the implicit argument from the secret-keeping side when this > inevitable confrontation comes. They will say to us, in essence, "It's the > only way. And you don't want to know." And a lot of us won't. > > It's fascinating, profound stuff. We don't want to know, but increasingly > it seems we can't not know, either. Sooner or later, something is going to > have to give. > Related > > - The New Political Prisoners: Leakers, Hackers and Activists > > > Read more: > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/wikileaks-was-just-a-preview-were-headed-for-an-even-bigger-showdown-over-secrets-20130322#ixzz2OjFzexaU > Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter| RollingStone > on Facebook > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: manning-600-1363967087.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 144806 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 27 20:15:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:45:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more obscure ones that seem to do this. In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or removal of IPs. Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and individuals with their own mail servers using it. --srs (iPad) On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. > > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. > > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >> Deirdre > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 27 22:00:30 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:00:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Was Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/Now UN Categorisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27 Mar 2013, at 03:16, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > According to the categorisation when it comes to voting and regional grouping within the UN in New York, Australia and New Zealand are part of the “Western European and Others Group” (WEOG) when it comes to voting and regional grouping at the UN. good point. 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 22:39:00 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:09:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> Message-ID: I agree with Suresh on Spamhaus being one of the more focused and well-operated DNSBLs out there. I've used them over years and have had superb performance and very effective spam filtering. If they blocked off someone, it's a very rare possibility that the message is good. We did maintain a positive whitelist to ensure our key clients dont get "filtered" out though; but thats a different matter... Spamhaus had put up something about a whitelist they're working on; which I think was invite-only when I last checked. -C On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more > obscure ones that seem to do this. > > In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people > take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or > removal of IPs. > > Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens > of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his > family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions > of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and > individuals with their own mail servers using it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam > businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it > seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss > the issues. > > > > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we > keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and > still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay > them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, > which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from > us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, > they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. > > > > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 > >> Deirdre > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Thu Mar 28 00:31:01 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:31:01 +1300 Subject: [governance] Was Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation/Now UN Categorisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5153C785.3040103@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Indeed, and as noted in my previous message ... perhaps "New Zealand" is an example of giving new meaning to the "multi" in multi-stakeholder ... Joy On 28/03/2013 3:00 p.m., Avri Doria wrote: > > On 27 Mar 2013, at 03:16, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> According to the categorisation when it comes to voting and >> regional grouping within the UN in New York, Australia and New >> Zealand are part of the “Western European and Others Group” >> (WEOG) when it comes to voting and regional grouping at the UN. > > good point. > > avri > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRU8eFAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqUykH/07Bxc6c7IffJh+HkpblxlAw Anm/QdBLe/shR0QdUTaDxM7yhV7+zFKf/p+kG3dKi9mFCmaNgbJV+DD3jIfei59w UnwEP1gN1/zY8ZDOLiYYKw3dVoIVEow0UUlZSPk/+lu6YXZOr2FsUXsAqSc0NNdz 2o28oivsnRfuroEDbtqAp1KICG3dwBeoThGHBqWg9hDhQZZJp4S5I34ZCYbnJg5T ceavT4dDIsLT8n4KC3W3kLidIkvTL8XKGBZZanrutbEkPYrKOO6QXbhY2ZfCVzAV rJMtZkKR7A8AJNOFoe4HTb6Dj1IsUtZIVM2dzv1P6U/KfQevW9v5Ki5blf68FjQ= =0K83 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 00:52:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:22:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> RFC 6471 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6471) is an informational RFC, produced through the IRTF, to which several regulars at the MAAWG (www.maawg.org) conference have contributed, on DNS blocklist and whitelist best practices. In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 8:09, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I agree with Suresh on Spamhaus being one of the more focused and well-operated DNSBLs out there. I've used them over years and have had superb performance and very effective spam filtering. If they blocked off someone, it's a very rare possibility that the message is good. > > We did maintain a positive whitelist to ensure our key clients dont get "filtered" out though; but thats a different matter... Spamhaus had put up something about a whitelist they're working on; which I think was invite-only when I last checked. > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more obscure ones that seem to do this. >> >> In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or removal of IPs. >> >> Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and individuals with their own mail servers using it. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. >> > >> > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >> > >> > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >> >> Deirdre >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 01:53:53 2013 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:53:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Afonso, If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come from all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has to join hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. Regards Gideon On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam > businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it > seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss > the issues. > > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we > keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and > still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay > them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, > which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from > us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, > they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. > > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-21954636 >> Deirdre >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 01:57:12 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:27:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In fact this may just be the world war 3 we've been hoping won't happen. Most wars arent recognized as world wars at their beginning, but if it'll affect the internet across the planet and involve smart people trying to find ways of destroying each other's IT infra, I fear it could rapidly escalate. -C On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Gideon wrote: > Afonso, > > If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there > needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come from > all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has to join > hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. > > Regards > Gideon > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss >> the issues. >> >> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from >> us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, >> they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >> >> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-21954636 >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 28 02:04:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:34:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This is something that requires cooperation in that something which was originally provided as a convenience is now being massively abused to cause damage on the internet, and it is not even the first time this has happened .. just the largest such instance. If your dns servers on your LAN that you use for dns lookup (resolution), or your ISP dns servers, are listed in the "open resolver project" please ensure that they are secured to limit access only to your users - similar to the way open relays were secured about 14..15 years back. http://www.openresolverproject.org --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 11:23, Gideon wrote: > Afonso, > > If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come from all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has to join hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. > > Regards > Gideon > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. >> >> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >> >> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>> Deirdre >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 28 02:06:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:36:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: DDoS attacks are actually quite old hat - except that they keep increasing in scale and virulence This is an even scarier thing if the story checks out - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-naval-forces-capture-3-scuba-divers-trying-to-sabotage-undersea-internet-cable/2013/03/27/dd2975ec-9725-11e2-a976-7eb906f9ed9b_story.html --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 11:27, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > In fact this may just be the world war 3 we've been hoping won't happen. Most wars arent recognized as world wars at their beginning, but if it'll affect the internet across the planet and involve smart people trying to find ways of destroying each other's IT infra, I fear it could rapidly escalate. > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Gideon wrote: >> Afonso, >> >> If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come from all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has to join hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. >> >> Regards >> Gideon >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. >>> >>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>> >>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 02:10:12 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:40:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: If it's a one time damage to the infra, it could be repaired or replaced - expensive yes but there's a definite end and workable solution (of course prevention better than cure). In a DDoS the scale of which has never been seen before - what's the end point? Either the spammers give up or ... (what is the other alternative)? -C On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > DDoS attacks are actually quite old hat - except that they keep increasing > in scale and virulence > > This is an even scarier thing if the story checks out - > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-naval-forces-capture-3-scuba-divers-trying-to-sabotage-undersea-internet-cable/2013/03/27/dd2975ec-9725-11e2-a976-7eb906f9ed9b_story.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Mar-2013, at 11:27, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: > > In fact this may just be the world war 3 we've been hoping won't happen. > Most wars arent recognized as world wars at their beginning, but if it'll > affect the internet across the planet and involve smart people trying to > find ways of destroying each other's IT infra, I fear it could rapidly > escalate. > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Gideon wrote: > >> Afonso, >> >> If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there >> needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come >> from all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has >> to join hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. >> >> Regards >> Gideon >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >>> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >>> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss >>> the issues. >>> >>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >>> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >>> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >>> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >>> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from >>> us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, >>> they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>> >>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-21954636 >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 28 02:14:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:44:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <32BF615F-0B1D-4406-B0A1-47803542D129@hserus.net> CB3ROB (which claimed credit for this DDoS attack) is apparently hosting quite a lot of malware, as well. I won't be surprised if this ends with one or more individuals in that outfit being arrested. Especially as what is going on involves bouncing dns traffic off other people's insecure open resolvers, and there is quantifiable damage in rather large amounts as a result of having to mitigate this attack. --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 11:40, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > If it's a one time damage to the infra, it could be repaired or replaced - expensive yes but there's a definite end and workable solution (of course prevention better than cure). > > In a DDoS the scale of which has never been seen before - what's the end point? Either the spammers give up or ... (what is the other alternative)? > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> DDoS attacks are actually quite old hat - except that they keep increasing in scale and virulence >> >> This is an even scarier thing if the story checks out - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-naval-forces-capture-3-scuba-divers-trying-to-sabotage-undersea-internet-cable/2013/03/27/dd2975ec-9725-11e2-a976-7eb906f9ed9b_story.html >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 11:27, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> >>> In fact this may just be the world war 3 we've been hoping won't happen. Most wars arent recognized as world wars at their beginning, but if it'll affect the internet across the planet and involve smart people trying to find ways of destroying each other's IT infra, I fear it could rapidly escalate. >>> >>> -C >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Gideon wrote: >>>> Afonso, >>>> >>>> If the whole world can feel the sting of the feud, it means that there needs to be more questions asked as well as solutions that will come from all quarters, tech-community, lawyers, entrepreneurs evrybody has to join hands otherwise such disastrous effects may be here to stay. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Gideon >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. >>>>> >>>>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>>>> >>>>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>>>> >>>>> frt rgds >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 28 04:19:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:19:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus Message-ID: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> A crucial failure of the antispam services is the lack of clear methods to communicate with legitimate services which they unilaterally decide to blacklist. Like any other service, blacklisting a legitimate service without first informing the service of  impending action is unacceptable, even if some of these blacklisters are nonprofit. Whatever the several RFCs on the subject recommend, most do not  follow basic rules which, if violated, would be illegal in any country with reasonable consumer laws and rules which regulate proper business practices. We operate our nonprofit Internet services since the beginning of the 90s. In several cases in which one of our services was about to be blacklisted, we received proper communication and were able to act to fix the problem. But recently most of these services do not bother to get in touch, and provide scant or non-existent ways to check why the service was blacklisted. The fact that several blacklisters are derivations from others compounds the problem, which is aggravated when these services are converted into money-making joints (even if disguised as nonprofit). Above all, there is need for far better coordination and a clear code of conduct. fraternal regards --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Date: 27/03/2013 21:15 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Spamhaus Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more obscure ones that seem to do this. In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or removal of IPs. Did you get listed by spamhaus ever?  I am not counting any of the dozens of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and individuals with their own mail servers using it. --srs (iPad) On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. > > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. > > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >> Deirdre > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 04:28:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:58:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> References: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> Message-ID: There are best practices. But all these blocklists are run by various individuals, and getting them all to follow best practices is almost as (if not more) difficult than trying to make people on this list stay on topic and not go off on rants about anything from tax avoidance onwards. The advantage that blocklists have over this situation is that only the best managed and most professionally run blocklists will survive for long and have a significant adoption in the market. --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 13:49, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > A crucial failure of the antispam services is the lack of clear methods to communicate with legitimate services which they unilaterally decide to blacklist. Like any other service, blacklisting a legitimate service without first informing the service of impending action is unacceptable, even if some of these blacklisters are nonprofit. > > Whatever the several RFCs on the subject recommend, most do not follow basic rules which, if violated, would be illegal in any country with reasonable consumer laws and rules which regulate proper business practices. > > We operate our nonprofit Internet services since the beginning of the 90s. In several cases in which one of our services was about to be blacklisted, we received proper communication and were able to act to fix the problem. But recently most of these services do not bother to get in touch, and provide scant or non-existent ways to check why the service was blacklisted. The fact that several blacklisters are derivations from others compounds the problem, which is aggravated when these services are converted into money-making joints (even if disguised as nonprofit). > > Above all, there is need for far better coordination and a clear code of conduct. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Date: 27/03/2013 21:15 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] Spamhaus > > > Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more obscure ones that seem to do this. > > In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or removal of IPs. > > Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and individuals with their own mail servers using it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > > I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the issues. > > > > We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. > > > > Where is the technical community when we need it? :) > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 > >> Deirdre > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Mar 28 04:48:10 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:48:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5152C97E.1080507@apc.org> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317A4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <515299FA.1050705@itforchange.net> <5152C97E.1080507@apc.org> Message-ID: Congrats Joy et al, nice to see NCUC well represented :-) Cheers, Bill On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all - congrats to other appointees and nominees and for the > supportive comments, it is humbling to be selected for this working > group and I look forward to our task. > I note the discussion about "New Zealand" and welcome it (so rarely > does New Zealand get such coverage :-) - and thanks Sala for your > comments. I'd offer that both within and outside various forums "New > Zealand" is frequently deemed part of different regional groups: > Pacific in some contexts (Pacific IGF), AsiaPacific in others (APTLD > and APNIC), Western Europe and Others in others (particularly as a > former British colony, member of the commonwealth, OECD and so on) - > sometimes this is the categorisation placed upon the country, > sometimes one chosen . but in any event, so far as I am aware, my > nomination is not for regional representation but rather to provide > civil society views, which I am sure all of us will be doing our very > best to do. > regards > Joy > > > > > On 27/03/2013 8:04 p.m., parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 10:03 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> Hi congratulations to the selected CS members, however I am very >>> surprised to see two CS reps from Asia (Joy & Parminder) but >>> nobody from Europe (the proposal from the focul point was Bill). >>> Any explanation for this unbalanced selection? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> Apart from the fact that your experience and engagements in this >> area will qualify you to be a part of any such group in any case, I >> make the following point purely about geographic distribution of CS >> (civil society) membership of the group and your claim of >> 'unbalanced selection'. >> >> You may have noted from the CSTD Chair's initial note on forming >> this WG (working group) that it considered five regional areas as >> follows: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, 'Latin America and >> Caribbean' and 'Western Europe and other states'. For the >> membership of the 'Western Europe and other states' category see >> http://www.un.org/esa/govwest.htm . >> >> Now if we go by this categorisation - there is one from Africa, one >> from Asia, none from Eastern Europe, one from 'Latin America and >> Caribbean' and two from 'Western Europe and other states' (Avri >> from the US and Joy from New Zealand). >> >> So, no, New Zealand is not in Asia, and there is no >> over-representation from Asia. (BTW Asia has close to 60 percent of >> world's population). In fact over representation is from 'Western >> Asia and other states' group. >> >> However, the Chair seemed to have followed the above five region >> formula only for governmental representation and for civil society >> he asked simply for 3 from developing countries and 3 from >> developed, to choose the final 5. Now that you raise the issue, I >> am not entirely sure if I agree with the civil society focal point >> having forwarded a slate of 8 - with 3 from developing countries >> and 5 from developed. That is what can more clearly be called as >> 'unbalanced selection' i think especially since among the 20 people >> who applied there were a lot of good names from developing >> countries. BTW, I dont know whether the imbalance came from the 6 >> names that emerged out of the 'selection committee process' or from >> the 2 additions to these names done by the focal point. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks wolfgang >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von >>> Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Di 26.03.2013 17:25 >>> An:governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Fwd: Final >>> composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Composition of the Working Group. All the best to those who have >>> been selected. Note that meetings are likely to be open for >>> observers >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> Dear members of the CSTD and other colleagues, >>> >>> As a follow up to my e-mail and Note on Composition and >>> Guidelines for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, >>> which I distributed on 13 February 2013, I am pleased to inform >>> you of the final composition of the Working Group in the attached >>> Note. I also am happy to report that Mr. Peter Major, Vice-Chair >>> of the CSTD from Hungary, has agreed to serve as Chair of the >>> Working Group. >>> >>> I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated >>> focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their >>> efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective >>> representatives, which was very useful for me in establishing the >>> Working Group, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General >>> Assembly resolution 67/195. >>> >>> There were many expressions of interest from people with >>> substantial relevant expertise, which made selecting the >>> representatives a challenging exercise. It was not possible to >>> include all requests for membership in the Working Group. >>> >>> The Rules of Procedure of the ECOSOC and its Functional >>> Commissions shall govern the work of the Working Group on >>> Enhanced Cooperation. Discussions should be open and transparent >>> and respect all proposals and opinions. The report of the Working >>> Group will be adopted by consensus. >>> >>> I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for >>> observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not >>> they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, >>> civil society, technical and academic communities as well as >>> other international and intergovernmental organizations. Observer >>> privileges will be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of >>> the ECOSOC and its Functional Commissions. >>> >>> Now that the Working Group membership and chairmanship have been >>> determined, Mr. Peter Major will follow up shortly regarding >>> preparations for the first meeting of the Working Group. >>> >>> Sincerely yours, >>> >>> >>> Miguel Palomino de la Gala Chairman, the UN Commission on Science >>> and Technology for Development >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRUsl9AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqcccIAIrSC/1iXqwOqRl9OTZO8FXK > zozs+3yg3UdPpnLrQyGTIGg4sPDfaLlX5XKsNflgsaCZEdsqlpVyML8YSsSyobL+ > 9Qi5fTOjSRo1cGfBSJbN8cAirM2eYC0c+i2m9RxcE8Lx8yHdDyrtz5HxiGyv+Yj/ > 96vbZfWvAHqHiiGO8zaPZJHpAUg+UFBESJD5u2R12fdcxHNzRKnt1KDo84ZH0K1w > MBTw7qlkqBCXOJgvWN3vmWxzDStqtlU59ZU2D3kWxSVOF2TW2WlfEK0QEsK0W1tv > LH89iyPe3W4vtz69XlAoIGZu5BO8PZZo6Ilj5EQmVdzH+HPulzJsawdK0KbshK4= > =Ln/Y > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Mar 28 04:49:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:49:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There are best practices. But all these blocklists are run by various > individuals, and getting them all to follow best practices is almost as (if > not more) difficult than trying to make people on this list stay on topic > and not go off on rants about anything from tax avoidance onwards. > consequences of our rants are a little less harmful :-) > > The advantage that blocklists have over this situation is that only the best > managed and most professionally run blocklists will survive for long and > have a significant adoption in the market. > And while these "others" are failing to survive is someone likely to suffer from their poor work? Is more transparency and accountability needed? Suresh, I know this is a topic you're expert on. Would be good to hear more about how blacklisting/blocklist services work. If those of you in the business think there should be changes made to how blocklists are operatred? (and other mechanism? If there are "other"?) Adam > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Mar-2013, at 13:49, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > A crucial failure of the antispam services is the lack of clear methods to > communicate with legitimate services which they unilaterally decide to > blacklist. Like any other service, blacklisting a legitimate service without > first informing the service of impending action is unacceptable, even if > some of these blacklisters are nonprofit. > > Whatever the several RFCs on the subject recommend, most do not follow > basic rules which, if violated, would be illegal in any country with > reasonable consumer laws and rules which regulate proper business practices. > > We operate our nonprofit Internet services since the beginning of the 90s. > In several cases in which one of our services was about to be blacklisted, > we received proper communication and were able to act to fix the problem. > But recently most of these services do not bother to get in touch, and > provide scant or non-existent ways to check why the service was blacklisted. > The fact that several blacklisters are derivations from others compounds the > problem, which is aggravated when these services are converted into > money-making joints (even if disguised as nonprofit). > > Above all, there is need for far better coordination and a clear code of > conduct. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Date: 27/03/2013 21:15 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams > > Subject: Re: [governance] Spamhaus > > > Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more > obscure ones that seem to do this. > > In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people > take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or > removal of IPs. > > Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens of > poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his > family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions > of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and > individuals with their own mail servers using it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the >> issues. >> >> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. >> Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they >> left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >> >> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>> Deirdre >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 05:07:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:37:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4B99B2F0-3FE6-47D7-B291-6BA4A968C19F@hserus.net> Hi Adam A very simplistic analogy would be a movie. You will find a wide variety of reviews about it - from somebody who saw it and writes about it on his blog or fb / twitter, to Roger Ebert reviewing it for the Chicago Sun-Times. Now, if joe user sees, say, "The Artist", and dismissively posts "Artist sux. No dialog at all!!!" on his twitter, versus if Ebert sees the movie and praises it to the skies [or conversely, gives it two thumbs down], do you see the difference in impact in ticket sales for the movie? That's the very same thing with blocklists. Some like spamhaus are in the Roger Ebert position - more than one movie will make or break its reputation [*] based on his review, and any site that lands in Spamhaus' blocklist will quite soon feel the impact - and, more often than not, start to remedy whatever problem it is, whether a hacked server hosting a malware command and control, or a marketer / other mailing list operator with sub-optimal mailing list processes. Others - well, if joe user tweets that the movie sucks, just how many people other than his close friends and family are going to read it, or care two hoots for his opinion? That is the position of the various other blocklists. There are some that are Eberts and Siskels. There are others that are joe user. Of course allow for the difference in spread that a reputation [*] for good or poor maintenance, and word of mouth popularity, gives either blocklists or reviews by joe users. ** reputation is a term quite often used in the email world, to indicate a more nuanced concept of filtering based on multiple parameters, and shifts dynamically over time .. --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 14:19, Adam Peake wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> There are best practices. But all these blocklists are run by various >> individuals, and getting them all to follow best practices is almost as (if >> not more) difficult than trying to make people on this list stay on topic >> and not go off on rants about anything from tax avoidance onwards. > > consequences of our rants are a little less harmful :-) > >> >> The advantage that blocklists have over this situation is that only the best >> managed and most professionally run blocklists will survive for long and >> have a significant adoption in the market. > > And while these "others" are failing to survive is someone likely to > suffer from their poor work? > > Is more transparency and accountability needed? > > Suresh, I know this is a topic you're expert on. Would be good to > hear more about how blacklisting/blocklist services work. If those of > you in the business think there should be changes made to how > blocklists are operatred? (and other mechanism? If there are "other"?) > > Adam > > > >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 13:49, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> A crucial failure of the antispam services is the lack of clear methods to >> communicate with legitimate services which they unilaterally decide to >> blacklist. Like any other service, blacklisting a legitimate service without >> first informing the service of impending action is unacceptable, even if >> some of these blacklisters are nonprofit. >> >> Whatever the several RFCs on the subject recommend, most do not follow >> basic rules which, if violated, would be illegal in any country with >> reasonable consumer laws and rules which regulate proper business practices. >> >> We operate our nonprofit Internet services since the beginning of the 90s. >> In several cases in which one of our services was about to be blacklisted, >> we received proper communication and were able to act to fix the problem. >> But recently most of these services do not bother to get in touch, and >> provide scant or non-existent ways to check why the service was blacklisted. >> The fact that several blacklisters are derivations from others compounds the >> problem, which is aggravated when these services are converted into >> money-making joints (even if disguised as nonprofit). >> >> Above all, there is need for far better coordination and a clear code of >> conduct. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Date: 27/03/2013 21:15 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Spamhaus >> >> >> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more >> obscure ones that seem to do this. >> >> In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people >> take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or >> removal of IPs. >> >> Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens of >> poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his >> family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions >> of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and >> individuals with their own mail servers using it. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >>> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >>> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss the >>> issues. >>> >>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >>> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >>> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >>> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >>> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from us. >>> Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, they >>> left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>> >>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>>> Deirdre >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Mar 28 08:33:37 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:33:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <6t8a6awm2wpi5sga89eu1bus.1364457702347@email.android.com> Message-ID: > Suresh, I know this is a topic you're expert on. Would be good to hear more > about how blacklisting/blocklist services work. If those of you in the business > think there should be changes made to how blocklists are operatred? (and > other mechanism? If there are "other"?) > As someone who manages several email servers I have some experience with DNS block lists. Spamhaus is very easy to deal with if you accidently get listed. Due to the way some ISPs allocate static IP addresses it is very easy to get on a block list. I have never had a problem getting a client that was accidently put on one of the Spamhaus lists removed. They have an automated process for doing this. Some other lists, SORBS in particular, can be very hard to get an IP address removed if the reason for being on the list is because the ISP has not told them the IP address is not dynamic. With most DNSBLs there is a process to get removed that can take a few hours to a few days. With a few the process is much harder and you need to get your ISP involved. This can take several weeks which can definitely impact a business, especially if the DNSBL provider is used by a major email provider like Microsoft or Yahoo. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 28 08:48:35 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:48:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51543C23.5000603@cafonso.ca> Chaitanya's message gives a hint of what is wrong with several of the blacklisters. The point is that a legitimate service might have a user which for a number of reasons (email account hijacked, for example) sends "bad" messages. This happened a few times in our service in our 20+ years of operation. Most of the blacklisters block first and ask later (if they do take the trouble to ask, which is not true of most of them) even for perfectly identified services (meaning fully identified in WHOIS and for which you can easily reach the admin). This is the main point: blacklisting is a welcome service for users and providers alike, provided that a basic code of conduct is followed (like the elementary principle of "innocent until proven guilty") and its main mission is providing a service to the community and not just gain money from providers or sponsors. []s fraternos --c.a. On 03/27/2013 11:39 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I agree with Suresh on Spamhaus being one of the more focused and > well-operated DNSBLs out there. I've used them over years and have had > superb performance and very effective spam filtering. If they blocked off > someone, it's a very rare possibility that the message is good. > > We did maintain a positive whitelist to ensure our key clients dont get > "filtered" out though; but thats a different matter... Spamhaus had put up > something about a whitelist they're working on; which I think was > invite-only when I last checked. > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more >> obscure ones that seem to do this. >> >> In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people >> take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or >> removal of IPs. >> >> Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens >> of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his >> family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions >> of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and >> individuals with their own mail servers using it. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss >> the issues. >>> >>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from >> us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, >> they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>> >>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>>> Deirdre >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 28 08:53:52 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:53:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: [...] > In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which > says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by > charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the > removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of > extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, unless we were willing to pay US$100. frt rgds --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 09:13:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:43:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <51543C23.5000603@cafonso.ca> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <51543C23.5000603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: That is the main reason MAAWG regulars got together to publish that informational RFC But rfcs, informational or not, are not "enforceable" I can no more tell SORBS to stop their listing practices (though those have considerably improved after they were acquired two or three years back by a commercial vendor, Proofpoint) than I can, as I pointed out, force some of the people here to stop what they post [I wouldn't do that, ever .. though I would criticize them, like I have criticized poorly run blocklists before] On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:18, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Chaitanya's message gives a hint of what is wrong with several of the blacklisters. The point is that a legitimate service might have a user which for a number of reasons (email account hijacked, for example) sends "bad" messages. This happened a few times in our service in our 20+ years of operation. Most of the blacklisters block first and ask later (if they do take the trouble to ask, which is not true of most of them) even for perfectly identified services (meaning fully identified in WHOIS and for which you can easily reach the admin). > > This is the main point: blacklisting is a welcome service for users and providers alike, provided that a basic code of conduct is followed (like the elementary principle of "innocent until proven guilty") and its main mission is providing a service to the community and not just gain money from providers or sponsors. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 03/27/2013 11:39 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> I agree with Suresh on Spamhaus being one of the more focused and >> well-operated DNSBLs out there. I've used them over years and have had >> superb performance and very effective spam filtering. If they blocked off >> someone, it's a very rare possibility that the message is good. >> >> We did maintain a positive whitelist to ensure our key clients dont get >> "filtered" out though; but thats a different matter... Spamhaus had put up >> something about a whitelist they're working on; which I think was >> invite-only when I last checked. >> >> -C >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more >>> obscure ones that seem to do this. >>> >>> In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people >>> take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or >>> removal of IPs. >>> >>> Did you get listed by spamhaus ever? I am not counting any of the dozens >>> of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his >>> family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions >>> of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and >>> individuals with their own mail servers using it. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >>> >>>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam >>> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it >>> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss >>> the issues. >>>> >>>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we >>> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and >>> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay >>> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda, >>> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from >>> us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise, >>> they left us alone. But there are plenty of others. >>>> >>>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :) >>>> >>>> frt rgds >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ... >>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636 >>>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 09:14:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:44:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > [...] >> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". > > This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, unless we were willing to pay US$100. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 09:34:11 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:04:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Message-ID: Actually that's what I do most often - though I've NEVER paid to delist - only requested; and that's always gone through. Happened a few years back when Yahoo's mail service blocked off my IP (though my volume of mail to Yahoo was significant good mail) - one polite email requesting a delisting was all it took! My IPs (all of them, even the ones that are not MX or A records - could be NS or others) are clean - there's no reason that shouldnt happen. Overall I'd say Spamhaus is one of the most cooperative, positive experience I've ever seen. Wish everyone (DNSBL community) were more like them... -C On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of > lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? > > Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and > figuring out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist > that mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > > On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > [...] > >> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which > >> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by > >> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the > >> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of > >> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". > > > > This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two > cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. > In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, > unless we were willing to pay US$100. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 28 09:47:52 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:47:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Message-ID: Broken, or perhaps not? Adam On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Actually that's what I do most often - though I've NEVER paid to delist - > only requested; and that's always gone through. Happened a few years back > when Yahoo's mail service blocked off my IP (though my volume of mail to > Yahoo was significant good mail) - one polite email requesting a delisting > was all it took! > > My IPs (all of them, even the ones that are not MX or A records - could be > NS or others) are clean - there's no reason that shouldnt happen. > > Overall I'd say Spamhaus is one of the most cooperative, positive experience > I've ever seen. Wish everyone (DNSBL community) were more like them... > > -C > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> >> Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of >> lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? >> >> Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring >> out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that >> mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> > On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > [...] >> >> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >> >> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >> >> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >> >> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >> >> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". >> > >> > This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two >> > cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. >> > In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, >> > unless we were willing to pay US$100. >> > >> > frt rgds >> > >> > --c.a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 10:12:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:42:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Message-ID: Let us put it this way. It *is* a massive DDoS on a scale not known before, and traffic levels have been massively high, but mitigation has simultaneously kicked in and is still going on as I speak. If that were not mitigated you might see the apocalypse, slowdown or whatever else much more obviously. --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 19:17, Adam Peake wrote: > Broken, or perhaps not? > > > > Adam > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: >> Actually that's what I do most often - though I've NEVER paid to delist - >> only requested; and that's always gone through. Happened a few years back >> when Yahoo's mail service blocked off my IP (though my volume of mail to >> Yahoo was significant good mail) - one polite email requesting a delisting >> was all it took! >> >> My IPs (all of them, even the ones that are not MX or A records - could be >> NS or others) are clean - there's no reason that shouldnt happen. >> >> Overall I'd say Spamhaus is one of the most cooperative, positive experience >> I've ever seen. Wish everyone (DNSBL community) were more like them... >> >> -C >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> >>> Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of >>> lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? >>> >>> Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring >>> out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that >>> mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >>>>> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >>>>> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >>>>> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >>>>> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". >>>> >>>> This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two >>>> cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. >>>> In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, >>>> unless we were willing to pay US$100. >>>> >>>> frt rgds >>>> >>>> --c.a. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 10:18:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Message-ID: <85847FC5-3883-4BCF-A2A5-10B74BFA7EC7@hserus.net> And here is a reply from the ISP that hosts cloudflare to the Gizmodo reporter, posted on nanog http://cluepon.net/ras/gizmodo --srs (iPad) On 28-Mar-2013, at 19:42, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let us put it this way. It *is* a massive DDoS on a scale not known before, and traffic levels have been massively high, but mitigation has simultaneously kicked in and is still going on as I speak. > > If that were not mitigated you might see the apocalypse, slowdown or whatever else much more obviously. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Mar-2013, at 19:17, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Broken, or perhaps not? >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar >> wrote: >>> Actually that's what I do most often - though I've NEVER paid to delist - >>> only requested; and that's always gone through. Happened a few years back >>> when Yahoo's mail service blocked off my IP (though my volume of mail to >>> Yahoo was significant good mail) - one polite email requesting a delisting >>> was all it took! >>> >>> My IPs (all of them, even the ones that are not MX or A records - could be >>> NS or others) are clean - there's no reason that shouldnt happen. >>> >>> Overall I'd say Spamhaus is one of the most cooperative, positive experience >>> I've ever seen. Wish everyone (DNSBL community) were more like them... >>> >>> -C >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of >>>> lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? >>>> >>>> Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring >>>> out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that >>>> mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >>>>>> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >>>>>> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >>>>>> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >>>>>> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". >>>>> >>>>> This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two >>>>> cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. >>>>> In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, >>>>> unless we were willing to pay US$100. >>>>> >>>>> frt rgds >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 28 17:56:36 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:56:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results -- new Message-ID: <5154BC94.1040004@cafonso.ca> Dear people, [with apologies for eventual duplication] Brazil drops further in the CBL (Composite Blocking List), from 12nd to 20th place. There is still a major broadband operator which has not yet implemented the port 25 management policy, and as soon as this happens I guess BR will drop significantly further: http://cbl.abuseat.org/country.html frt rgds --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 28 18:12:00 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:12:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5154C030.8030508@cafonso.ca> First, I would never say a phrase like that. I am not that theatrical :) Second, if a major (primary) blacklister blocks your server, this propagates to secondary listers which refer to it. Third, unless there was an absolute emergency, which was never the case, we would never concede to this sort of extortion. And fourth, curiously major providers like Google, Yahoo, UOL (BR) and others are frequently ignoring these blacklisters, precisely because of the sloppy manner in which even some of the primary ones perform their work. Even when Barracuda insisted on blocking one of our servers, Google and most major others never bothered. And finally, please note that we have never had a problem with our DNS servers. Blacklisters (in some cases they should be called blackmailers) usually target one of our list servers or mail servers. fraternal regards --c.a. On 03/28/2013 10:14 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? > > Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> [...] >>> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >>> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >>> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >>> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >>> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". >> >> This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, unless we were willing to pay US$100. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 28 18:39:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 04:09:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <5154C030.8030508@cafonso.ca> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> <5154C030.8030508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4CB98999-168B-4967-B043-52EB8A4BF464@hserus.net> Like I said barracuda has some small businesses using it, tops. The other for pay ones don't have much adoption What secondary blacklists do you mean? Typically all the major ones don't list just because another bl lists it. If you see a listing in multiple bls, it is mostly because each of their traps detected someone that met their criteria for inclusion in a bl. --srs (iPad) On 29-Mar-2013, at 3:42, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > First, I would never say a phrase like that. I am not that theatrical :) > > Second, if a major (primary) blacklister blocks your server, this propagates to secondary listers which refer to it. > > Third, unless there was an absolute emergency, which was never the case, we would never concede to this sort of extortion. > > And fourth, curiously major providers like Google, Yahoo, UOL (BR) and others are frequently ignoring these blacklisters, precisely because of the sloppy manner in which even some of the primary ones perform their work. Even when Barracuda insisted on blocking one of our servers, Google and most major others never bothered. > > And finally, please note that we have never had a problem with our DNS servers. Blacklisters (in some cases they should be called blackmailers) usually target one of our list servers or mail servers. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 03/28/2013 10:14 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Let me ask you a question. Did you actually face significant volumes of lost mail from those "pay to delist" blocklists? >> >> Or was this a case of looking up your IP on say mxtoolbox.com and figuring out "oh no, I am blocked, let me get out of every single blocklist that mxtoolbox says that I'm on?" >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:23, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> On 03/28/2013 01:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> [...] >>>> In particular please see section 2.2.5 on conflict of interest which >>>> says that while a dnsbl may be run as a commercial proposition by >>>> charging a fee from sites that use it, it MUST not charge for the >>>> removal of a listing, as this "steers periliously close to notions of >>>> extortion, blackmail or a protection racket". >>> >>> This is a RFC recommendation typically not followed. In at least two cases we were asked for money to have the IP removed from their blacklist. In one case, they would remove for free only seven days after the request, unless we were willing to pay US$100. >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 29 00:12:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:42:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> <5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net> All There has been not much uptake here for a discussion on selections procedures for civil society (CS) reps for various multistakeholder (MS) bodies, but I would persist. This issue is important, and a 90 min workshop at IGF is not going to solve/ address the problems/ issues involved. On Wednesday 27 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Hi Anriette > > I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal point. For > selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the focal point was > IGC. It was asked to submit 5 names all of which were then put on the > WG. I understand that CSTD may this time have approached you since APC > is the only NGO working on information society issues that is in > general consultative status with the ECOSOC. Having being given this > role, APC has the right to take an independent decision on whether to > accept it or pass it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to > reflect why did it lose that role, it at all it is connected to its > profile, stature, visibility or performance. I have something to say > on this matter but that separately. In this email I will make some observations on the IGC selection process, and in the next one of the focal point directed selection process. IGC has a clearly laid out selection process. The guidelines and principles, both coming from the charter and precedents are basically sound, although there may be some views for a possible rethink whether a noncom based process should be augmented by a larger general voting process. Diplo Foundation follows such a composite process. Right now I am relatively neutral between the two kinds, and see advantages and disadvantages in both. But maybe worth a discussion. However, what I was as a clear issue with the IGC selection process that concluded recently, and also in the earlier IGC conducted ones, is the lack of wide dissemination of call for nominations - and actively soliciting nominations from outside groups. Now, if we do not do it, we would obviously lose the role a CS intermediary and focal point for CS selection. We should be clear, if we are nominating on CS's behalf we need to reach out. And I think that it should largely be the responsibility of coordinators to do such an extensive outreach, while the nomcom chair should also do it. Or a voluntary sub committee should do it. And here I come what I see as the principal issue/ problem with the health of IGC overall. IGC was supposed to have a dual character of a discussion space and an active advocacy group. But the structure of the IGC is not adequate to these twin tasks. (There may also be deeper reasons for such a situation, but this is something most amenable to do something about.) And for this reason is has largely been reduced to a good - well, mostly - discussion space, but all activties on the advoacy/ action side have suffered. I have always thought that there should be a members-only space for IGC where procedural, action oriented activities can be worked out, without the din and noise of the larger IG discussions that mostly rent the IGC elist. This has become a classic case of overdoing openness killing effectiveness. I can see that IGC will continue to be on the downward spiral of action-/ advocacy-wise effectiveness, that it is on right now, unless this and other corrective measures are taken- What is required in my view is to have a standing membership of the IGC - and not the spontaneously occurring and dying membership at the moment of voting. There should also be a members only elist for procedural and core action oriented matters (at least some stages of such matters, while most work being done on the open list). Anyone can become a member of IGC by agreeing to its charter. However, once there is a members only space, in addition to the discussion space, I expect there to be a greater sense of ownership and responsibility to the group by its members. Connecting back to the original subject of this email, in such circumstances; the best course for the IGC to follow around a specific required selection process, and distribution of duties etc for the purpose, can be accomplished in a much better manner. parminder > >> >> 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, made >> an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by >> empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves. > > This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked to > provide all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF improvements. > And I agree a movement away from 'black box' approach is good. But as > you say, such an improvement must consist in actually 'empowering the > concerned stakeholder group' - whereby the alternative process should > clearly bear all signs that it is representative, accountable, > transarent etc to the concerned stakeholder group. As I said in the > set of guidelines I proposed - 'any such role should be taken as a > responsibility on the behalf of the concerned stakeholder group'. > >> Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking >> the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil >> society to manage this type of process. > > Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final selection was > not the right way to go about it. >> >> 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the >> identification of civil society actors for participation in IG processes >> to the IGC. > > 100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that the > WG on IGF improvements worte in its final report that selection of > stakeholder reps should not be restricted to one body or group. True > for civil society, and true for technical/ academic community and > business. > >> The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are >> clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) claim >> to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest >> in, internet policy and governance. > > IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree that > anyone suggesting any such thing must be countered appropriately. > However, IGC is still perhaps the most open and inclusive network in > global IG space, while its actual performance capacities have been > ham-shackled considerably due to a lot of reasons, but again, on that > separately. > >> With more time I would have liked >> to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g. >> rotation, and distribute the call even wider. >> >> 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to >> go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community >> whose experience and help I could rely on. >> >> These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and >> effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although >> transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. > > Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an incontestable > aspect of all such processes. Actual process use may sometime vary and > there may be differences on them, but there should be no two views > about transparency. > >> But what is >> considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the >> IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a transparent >> and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best results. >> No process will be perfect. >> >> This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider the >> weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other groups - >> so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups. > > Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and > representation processes better it is. However, I do not take this > thing about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not of > 'others'. For instance, I am quite concerned that small developing > country businesses should be represented appropriately when business > participates in global policy bodies, and I have a right to be so > concerned. It is not a private affair of only those who do business. > So, neither it is for a set of people to decide who would be defined > as 'technical and academic community' for filling a given quota on a > public body. It is everybody's business. It is a public issue. > >> >> It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion, >> facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe, > > > >> able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions. > > Most important is that those who do take up a public role on behalf of > public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe' simply because > some accountability and transparency questions are asked - as was done > in case of tech/acad community's selection process recently. It is the > public's right to do so. It is even worse when some other people begin > to feel unsafe on behalf of these people with a public role - a rather > strange display of which has recently been made on this list. > > parminder > > >> Being >> critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start >> having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting >>> of the >>> process. >>> Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard >>> work >>> once selected. >>> >>> On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great >>> earthquake >>> and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it >>> should be. >>> That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. >>> >>> And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree >>> with you. >>> And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, >>> hopefully >>> drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to >>> reviewing >>> the past or existing ones. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/3/20 Adam Peake >>> >>>> Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. >>>> >>>> Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And >>>> Nnenna's given some great ideas. >>>> >>>> But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather >>>> than a postmortem on what was and might have been. >>>> >>>> I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the >>>> first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of >>>> CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent >>>> WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, >>>> possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we >>>> look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather >>>> than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably >>>> me included.) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: >>>>> The discussion, I think, has starte >>>> d. It might have taken off in a >>>>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >>>>> >>>>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >>>>> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >>>> methodology. >>>>> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) >>>>> and we >>>> still >>>>> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. >>>>> >>>>> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >>>>> consensus, >>>> but >>>>> at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it >>>>> not for >>>>> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >>>>> >>>>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative >>>>> "positions" for >>>>> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >>>> document, >>>>> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be >>>> VERY >>>>> helpful. >>>>> >>>>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >>>>> >>>>> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the >>>> CSTD, >>>>> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way >>>>> Anriette >>>> and >>>>> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I >>>>> am in >>>> so >>>>> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there >>>>> was a >>>> "a >>>>> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". >>>>> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >>>>> tempted >>>> to >>>>> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG >>>>> issues.. >>>>> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to >>>>> hear >>>>> others on this though >>>>> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >>>>> Should >>>> we >>>>> discuss a minimum quota? >>>>> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >>>>> that any >>>>> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have >>>>> the >>>> same >>>>> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we >>>> strike >>>>> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our >>>>> paths >>>>> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, >>>>> issues >>>> and >>>>> manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will >>>> arrive >>>>> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >>>> "qualified" >>>>> people... >>>>> What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must >>>>> be made >>>>> between experience and representation, or between experience and >>>> opportunity >>>>> for growth? >>>>> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >>>>> issues) to >>>>> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can >>>>> someone say >>>> "we" >>>>> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be >>>>> synonymous >>>>> with "people who can travel and be there physically"? >>>>> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an >>>>> extreme need >>>> to >>>>> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has >>>>> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >>>>> ..... many more...:) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nnennna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: parminder >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. >>>>> >>>>> I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for >>>> forwarding my >>>>> name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process >>>>> employed >>>> for >>>>> the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done >>>>> now or >>>>> after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions >>>>> from >>>> the >>>>> IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the >>>>> final >>>>> selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, >>>>> for one, >>>> do >>>>> not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to >>>> contribute - >>>>> to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. >>>>> What we >>>> will >>>>> get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help >>>> anyone >>>>> in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even >>>> better >>>>> way. >>>>> >>>>> I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that >>>>> I do >>>> not >>>>> appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a >>>>> discussion >>>> only >>>>> after the process is completed. >>>>> >>>>> I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being >>>>> promoted by >>>>> some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is >>>>> too >>>>> easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very >>>>> unfortunate, and >>>>> against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand >>>>> it. We >>>> have >>>>> a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who >>>>> are not >>>>> directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions >>>>> regarding our >>>>> internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much >>>> prefer >>>>> that we overdo it rather than underdo it. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the >>>> chances >>>>> of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, >>>>> because no >>>>> one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on >>>>> :).... >>>>> However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have >>>> already >>>>> been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to >>>> postpone >>>>> raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final >>>>> report >>>> by >>>>> the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from >>>>> nominees for >>>>> this working group before I released the names of the candidates. >>>>> >>>>> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one >>>>> person >>>>> did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the >>>>> original 19 >>>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on >>>>> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they >>>>> put >>>>> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their >>>>> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in >>>>> preselecting the IGC nominees. >>>>> >>>>> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted >>>>> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: >>>>> >>>>> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) >>>>> >>>>> Avri Doria (N America) >>>>> Carlos Afonso (A America) >>>>> Don McClean (N America) >>>>> Grace Githaiga (Africa) >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) >>>>> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) >>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) >>>>> William Drake (Europe) >>>>> >>>>> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from >>>>> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people >>>>> who >>>>> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular >>>>> expertise >>>>> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case >>>>> any of >>>>> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>>>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>>>> >>>>> *Background* >>>>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian >>>>> Palomino >>>>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil >>>>> society >>>>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>>>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the >>>>> final >>>>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>>>> >>>>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I >>>>> approached 7 >>>>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>>>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>>>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I >>>>> personally >>>>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil >>>>> society >>>>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>>>> >>>>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person >>>>> each >>>>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>>>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>>>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society >>>>> participation, I >>>>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>>>> >>>>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>>>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>>>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>>>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>>>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>>>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>>>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal >>>>> point and >>>>> convenor of the group. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling >>>>> for much >>>>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>>>> >>>>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone >>>>> from >>>>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>>>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>>>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>>>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>>>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>>>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a >>>>> chance. >>>>> >>>>> *Nominees* >>>>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>>>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to >>>>> spread >>>>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from >>>>> outside the >>>>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>>>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am >>>>> happy to >>>>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>>>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>>>> >>>>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>>>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>>>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also >>>>> 'endorsed' >>>>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>>>> >>>>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection >>>>> processes >>>>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. >>>>> I felt >>>>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned >>>>> as a >>>>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>>>> >>>>> *Scoring process* >>>>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>>>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working >>>>> group. >>>>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate >>>>> against >>>>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >>>>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to >>>>> score >>>>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The criteria were as follows: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >>>>> processes. >>>>> >>>>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>>>> >>>>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>>>> >>>>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in >>>>> multi-stakeholder >>>>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >>>>> conflicting interests. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Shortlist* >>>>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>>>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank >>>>> them in >>>>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>>>> regional and gender balance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>>>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>>>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>>>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top >>>>> 12 whom >>>>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I >>>>> submitted >>>>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure >>>>> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >>>>> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>>>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >>>>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>>>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's >>>>> decision, and >>>>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >>>>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>>>> >>>>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >>>>> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >>>>> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >>>>> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >>>>> the broader internet community. >>>>> >>>>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, >>>>> every >>>>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. >>>>> They >>>>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >>>>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>>>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>>>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>>>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Fri Mar 29 04:23:45 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:53:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> On 03/27/2013 08:52 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? > Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and > network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he > was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni > there. Admin staff of a University as the sole* 'academic community' representative on the WG? I think the academic community would find this quite absurd. (* I am waiting to hear from the focal point for T&A community on who are the academic community representatives in this group) > In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint > about CSTD politics: > > http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings > McTim, can you please point to when and where did IT for Change complain against appointment of Markus as the interim chair.... In one earlier occasion, I remember, you had levelled unfounded allegations against Parminder on this list, and when he challenged you to substantiate, you just did not respond. Also, what does CSTD have to do with IGF appointments? Kindly avoid bringing in red herrings to deflect from the serious_issue_of_the_legitimacy_of_the_selection_process_for the T&A community for CSTD WG. Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 29 04:40:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:10:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <267DD0F0-E9C9-46E2-A8E0-742ADD9620ED@hserus.net> Do you speak for the academic community in declaring his selection absurd by any chance? If not, what business is it of yours as to who is selected by an entirely different constituency in this structure, though most of its members may self identify with civil society? Especially when as McTim has pointed out the individual in question is quite well known as a teacher and trainer on networking and related topics, in several emerging African economies? --srs (iPad) On 29-Mar-2013, at 13:53, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On 03/27/2013 08:52 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? >> Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and >> network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he >> was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni >> there. > > Admin staff of a University as the sole* 'academic community' representative on the WG? I think the academic community would find this quite absurd. > (* I am waiting to hear from the focal point for T&A community on who are the academic community representatives in this group) > >> In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint >> about CSTD politics: >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings > McTim, can you please point to when and where did IT for Change complain against appointment of Markus as the interim chair.... In one earlier occasion, I remember, you had levelled unfounded allegations against Parminder on this list, and when he challenged you to substantiate, you just did not respond. > > Also, what does CSTD have to do with IGF appointments? Kindly avoid bringing in red herrings to deflect from the serious_issue_of_the_legitimacy_of_the_selection_process_for the T&A community for CSTD WG. > > Guru > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 29 04:59:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:29:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> BTW, the definition employed by the OECD for technical community in our very area of Internet governance in terms of forming stakeholder groups can be seen here . You will see non ISOC, non ICANN, non RIR organisations as founding members of the Technical Community Advisory Group to OECD Intern policy making process. Organisations like Internet2 which is 'community of U.S. and international leaders in research, academia, industry and government who create and collaborate via innovative technologies'. And these are just founding members of the Technical Community Advisory Group, others can join in. But what we have from the definition that was employed by the Focal point for selecting technical and academic community reps to the WG on EC, someone applying say from the "internet2' project/ community would not have qualified. Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for the UN system..... Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply been banished. A strong stench of power capture is evident here, but our own colleagues will have it that we behave as well manner status quoists and not raise such pesky issues. parminder On Friday 29 March 2013 01:53 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On 03/27/2013 08:52 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do >>> university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? >> Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and >> network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he >> was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni >> there. > > Admin staff of a University as the sole* 'academic community' > representative on the WG? I think the academic community would find > this quite absurd. > (* I am waiting to hear from the focal point for T&A community on who > are the academic community representatives in this group) > >> In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint >> about CSTD politics: >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings >> >> > McTim, can you please point to when and where did IT for Change > complain against appointment of Markus as the interim chair.... In one > earlier occasion, I remember, you had levelled unfounded allegations > against Parminder on this list, and when he challenged you to > substantiate, you just did not respond. > > Also, what does CSTD have to do with IGF appointments? Kindly avoid > bringing in red herrings to deflect from the > serious_issue_of_the_legitimacy_of_the_selection_process_for the T&A > community for CSTD WG. > > Guru > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 08:56:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:56:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public > interest Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG systems over many decades. These systems have created the most successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history. -- 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 Fri Mar 29 09:11:36 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:11:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: <4CB98999-168B-4967-B043-52EB8A4BF464@hserus.net> References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> <5154C030.8030508@cafonso.ca> <4CB98999-168B-4967-B043-52EB8A4BF464@hserus.net> Message-ID: PCH’s Bill Woodcock explains the DDOS attack on Spamhaus. Bill is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met and probably understands how the Internet works better than 99% of the technical community. http://youtu.be/Vlhu8_Aa7J8 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 29 09:25:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:55:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus In-Reply-To: References: <51533173.7070908@cafonso.ca> <012C93E3-162B-44AD-88D5-93196057E34D@hserus.net> <0A0B9F3D-CAB5-489E-8396-5AE8B8C8C9D5@hserus.net> <51543D60.1020201@cafonso.ca> <0D159DF0-0D85-440D-BDCA-2054F5E4B952@hserus.net> <5154C030.8030508@cafonso.ca> <4CB98999-168B-4967-B043-52EB8A4BF464@hserus.net> Message-ID: <13db64af64a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I will agree 100%. Hadn't seen this one yet, thanks for sharing --srs (htc one x) On 29 March 2013 6:41:36 PM Kerry Brown wrote: > PCH’s Bill Woodcock explains the DDOS attack on Spamhaus. Bill is one > of the smartest people I’ve ever met and probably understands how the > Internet works better than 99% of the technical community. > > http://youtu.be/Vlhu8_Aa7J8 > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 10:18:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:18:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On 03/27/2013 08:52 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> >>> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal. Do >>> university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? >> >> Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and >> network builder in West and Central Africa. Last time I saw him he >> was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni >> there. > > > Admin staff of a University as the sole* 'academic community' representative > on the WG? I think the academic community would find this quite absurd. I don't think they would if they read this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Corenthin > > >> In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint >> about CSTD politics: >> >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings >> > McTim, can you please point to when and where did IT for Change complain > against appointment of Markus as the interim chair Are you in favor of this appointment? If so, I would welcome that. I may shave conflated Jeremy's opposition to this appointment with Parminder's opposition to the T&A FP's choices or manner of choosing. If so, I apologize unreservedly for lumping all attacks on the T&A folk together. .... In one earlier > occasion, I remember, you had levelled unfounded allegations against > Parminder on this list refresh my memory please? , and when he challenged you to substantiate, you just > did not respond. Sometimes, there is silly stuff on this list that I just can't be bothered to reply to! > Also, what does CSTD have to do with IGF appointments? Kindly avoid bringing > in red herrings to deflect from the > serious_issue_of_the_legitimacy_of_the_selection_process_for the T&A > community for CSTD WG. Which is not really our concern IMHO. We have zero chance of influencing the T&A FP, and can only further dilute our standing with continued insistence that they change their mind! -- 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 Mar 29 10:33:46 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:33:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:59 AM, parminder wrote: > > BTW, the definition employed by the OECD for technical community in our very > area of Internet governance in terms of forming stakeholder groups can be > seen here. > > You will see non ISOC, non ICANN, non RIR organisations as founding members > of the Technical Community Advisory Group to OECD Intern policy making > process. Organisations like Internet2 which is 'community of U.S. and > international leaders in research, academia, industry and government who > create and collaborate via innovative technologies'. > > And these are just founding members of the Technical Community Advisory > Group, others can join in. But what we have from the definition that was > employed by the Focal point for selecting technical and academic community > reps to the WG on EC, someone applying say from the "internet2' project/ > community would not have qualified. you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. > > Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for > the UN system..... > > Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the > 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, > what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply > been banished. but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 29 12:18:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:48:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > > > you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst > other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'? And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on EC? > > >> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for >> the UN system..... >> >> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, >> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >> been banished. > but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the Internet'? 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Mar 29 12:30:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:30:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Wow, Gotcha... On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> >> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. > > > So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical > (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of > organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think > that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the > Internet'? > I think probably yes Adam > And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees > from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on > EC? > > > > >> >> >>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not >>> for >>> the UN system..... >>> >>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>> erronoeus, >>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>> been banished. >> >> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. > > > How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? > Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld > whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day > to day operational management of the Internet'? > > parminder > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 29 12:44:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:44:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> >> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. > > > So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical > (and academic) community that the focal point gave us of course which is "community of > organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think > that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the > Internet'? yes > > And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees > from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on > EC? yes > > > > >> >> >>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not >>> for >>> the UN system..... >>> >>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>> erronoeus, >>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>> been banished. >> >> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. > > > How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? Alex C., who is academic AND technical AND well versed in UNish things. -- 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 Mar 29 12:47:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:17:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> Tried to find out exactly what internet2 does and what its membership is, before asking all these questions? No? I thought not .. http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm --srs (iPad) On 29-Mar-2013, at 21:48, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. > > So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'? > > And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on EC? > > > >> >> >>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for >>> the UN system..... >>> >>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, >>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>> been banished. >> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. > > How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the Internet'? > > parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 12:49:24 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, I would think that the folk who are active in these networks would also be eligible, no? http://www.internet2.edu/international/reachable/ On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Tried to find out exactly what internet2 does and what its membership is, > before asking all these questions? > > No? I thought not .. http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 29-Mar-2013, at 21:48, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > > you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst > > other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. > > > So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical > (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of > organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational > management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think > that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the > Internet'? > > > And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees > from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on > EC? > > > > > > > Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for > > the UN system..... > > > Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the > > 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, > > what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply > > been banished. > > but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. > > > How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? > Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld > whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day > to day operational management of the Internet'? > > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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 Mar 29 12:59:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:29:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> I have no particular objection - but then I don't have any particular agenda of trying to exclude specific people from other stakeholder communities either, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask that question. --srs (iPad) On 29-Mar-2013, at 22:19, McTim wrote: > Suresh, > > I would think that the folk who are active in these networks would > also be eligible, no? > > http://www.internet2.edu/international/reachable/ > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Tried to find out exactly what internet2 does and what its membership is, >> before asking all these questions? >> >> No? I thought not .. http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 29-Mar-2013, at 21:48, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> >> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >> >> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. >> >> >> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical >> (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of >> organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational >> management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think >> that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the >> Internet'? >> >> >> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees >> from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on >> EC? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not for >> >> the UN system..... >> >> >> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >> >> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is erronoeus, >> >> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >> >> been banished. >> >> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. >> >> >> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? >> Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld >> whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day >> to day operational management of the Internet'? >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > 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 acm.org Fri Mar 29 13:58:29 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:58:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> hi, I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive result all of this will have. As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? avri PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 14:59:18 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1364583558.489.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Alex Corenthin is not only an academic,  he is also the manager of Senegalese ccTLD: .sn He is the co-covener of the Senegal IGF and has been a convener of West Africa IGF. Just for the info. Happy Easter N   ________________________________ From: McTim To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On 03/27/2013 08:52 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>   wrote: >>> >>> There is an individual identified from a university in Senegal.  Do >>> university administrative staff not qualify as "academic community"? >> >> Alex is not just admin staff of the Uni, but a great teacher and >> network builder in West and Central Africa.  Last time I saw him he >> was waiting all night for a flight to ouagadougou to teach at the Uni >> there. > > > Admin staff of a University as the sole* 'academic community' representative > on the WG? I think the academic community would find this quite absurd. I don't think they would if they read this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Corenthin > > >> In any case, here is a rejoinder from another IT for Change complaint >> about CSTD politics: >> >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/03/reflecting-my-role-interim-chair-open-consultations-and-mag-meetings >> > McTim, can you please point to when and where did IT for Change complain > against appointment of Markus as the interim chair Are you in favor of this appointment? If so, I would welcome that.  I may shave conflated Jeremy's opposition to this appointment with Parminder's opposition to the T&A FP's choices or manner of choosing. If so, I apologize unreservedly for lumping all attacks on the T&A folk together. .... In one earlier > occasion, I remember, you had levelled unfounded allegations against > Parminder on this list refresh my memory please? , and when he challenged you to substantiate, you just > did not respond. Sometimes, there is silly stuff on this list that I just can't be bothered to reply to! > Also, what does CSTD have to do with IGF appointments? Kindly avoid bringing > in red herrings to deflect from the > serious_issue_of_the_legitimacy_of_the_selection_process_for the T&A > community for CSTD WG. Which is not really our concern IMHO. We have zero chance of influencing the T&A FP, and can only further dilute our standing with continued insistence that they change their mind! -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 15:22:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:22:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet Message-ID: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in which the discussion went, or rather didn't go. I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the discussion. But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional architecture for the "governance" of the Internet. Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact, a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being built on that platform. I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience. And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the overall mission that I was attempting to pursue. But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall organizational/social mission that we were pursuing. What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as "stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship. Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the Internet. Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the various parties are bringing to those interactions. What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to build for ourselves and our children. That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this platform. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation hi, I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive result all of this will have. As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? avri PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Mar 29 15:25:34 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:25:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update (plus MS on Wikipedia) In-Reply-To: <515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> <5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net> <515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5155EAAE.7040606@communisphere.com> All, I was delighted to see civil society's selections made for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I don’t think 5 better people could represent us. Not only were the civil society choices most excellent, but the broad acceptance of the multistakeholder governance model demonstrates positive democratic inclinations. But while we’ve managed to make these selections in a basically open and transparent manner, as compared with some other stakeholder groups, I believe we (Civil Society) need to set the standard for transparency and accountability: we must seek to be on the side of the angels, above criticism, setting and following a standard that we should encourage other stakeholder groups to follow. A 90 minute IGF workshop is a step in the right direction. But a broader plan to establish an open, transparent, and accountable process for selecting civil society representatives in a timely, thoughtful, and democratic process is needed. Some months ago, while enmeshed in yet another rushed NomCom selection process, I suggested we needed to improve our act, possibly by coordinating our activities with other civil society players. Today I again call for such a process and invite others to join me in exploring ways this might be achieved. Best, Thomas Lowenhaupt P.S. I started a rudimentary Multistakeholder Governance Model page on Wikipedia. With the increasing acceptance and awareness of MGM, and Wikipedia increasingly the start page for new (and news) inquiries, I expect this page to become dog eared. So let’s make it “the” definitive page for defining and presenting the Model. Notes to non-Wikipedians... 1. All (or most all) of the disagreement about the scope and definition of MGM in Wikipedia should take place on that entry’s corresponding Talk page (which is currently empty). 2. Those who have suggestions, but don’t have the time or inclination to dirty their hands with MediaWiki code, feel free to send me your suggestions for contributions. I’ll either include them in the definition or present them on the Talk page. Other editors might of course have their own opinion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 3/29/2013 12:12 AM, parminder wrote: > > All > > There has been not much uptake here for a discussion on selections > procedures for civil society (CS) reps for various multistakeholder > (MS) bodies, but I would persist. This issue is important, and a 90 > min workshop at IGF is not going to solve/ address the problems/ > issues involved. > > > On Wednesday 27 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Anriette >> >> I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal point. For >> selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the focal point was >> IGC. It was asked to submit 5 names all of which were then put on the >> WG. I understand that CSTD may this time have approached you since >> APC is the only NGO working on information society issues that is in >> general consultative status with the ECOSOC. Having being given this >> role, APC has the right to take an independent decision on whether to >> accept it or pass it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to >> reflect why did it lose that role, it at all it is connected to its >> profile, stature, visibility or performance. I have something to say >> on this matter but that separately. > > In this email I will make some observations on the IGC selection > process, and in the next one of the focal point directed selection > process. > > IGC has a clearly laid out selection process. The guidelines and > principles, both coming from the charter and precedents are basically > sound, although there may be some views for a possible rethink whether > a noncom based process should be augmented by a larger general voting > process. Diplo Foundation follows such a composite process. Right now > I am relatively neutral between the two kinds, and see advantages and > disadvantages in both. But maybe worth a discussion. > > However, what I was as a clear issue with the IGC selection process > that concluded recently, and also in the earlier IGC conducted ones, > is the lack of wide dissemination of call for nominations - and > actively soliciting nominations from outside groups. Now, if we do not > do it, we would obviously lose the role a CS intermediary and focal > point for CS selection. We should be clear, if we are nominating on > CS's behalf we need to reach out. And I think that it should largely > be the responsibility of coordinators to do such an extensive > outreach, while the nomcom chair should also do it. Or a voluntary sub > committee should do it. > > And here I come what I see as the principal issue/ problem with the > health of IGC overall. IGC was supposed to have a dual character of a > discussion space and an active advocacy group. But the structure of > the IGC is not adequate to these twin tasks. (There may also be deeper > reasons for such a situation, but this is something most amenable to > do something about.) And for this reason is has largely been reduced > to a good - well, mostly - discussion space, but all activties on the > advoacy/ action side have suffered. I have always thought that there > should be a members-only space for IGC where procedural, action > oriented activities can be worked out, without the din and noise of > the larger IG discussions that mostly rent the IGC elist. This has > become a classic case of overdoing openness killing effectiveness. I > can see that IGC will continue to be on the downward spiral of > action-/ advocacy-wise effectiveness, that it is on right now, unless > this and other corrective measures are taken- > > What is required in my view is to have a standing membership of the > IGC - and not the spontaneously occurring and dying membership at the > moment of voting. There should also be a members only elist for > procedural and core action oriented matters (at least some stages of > such matters, while most work being done on the open list). Anyone can > become a member of IGC by agreeing to its charter. However, once there > is a members only space, in addition to the discussion space, I expect > there to be a greater sense of ownership and responsibility to the > group by its members. Connecting back to the original subject of this > email, in such circumstances; the best course for the IGC to follow > around a specific required selection process, and distribution of > duties etc for the purpose, can be accomplished in a much better manner. > > parminder > >> >>> >>> 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, >>> made >>> an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by >>> empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves. >> >> This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked to >> provide all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF improvements. >> And I agree a movement away from 'black box' approach is good. But as >> you say, such an improvement must consist in actually 'empowering the >> concerned stakeholder group' - whereby the alternative process >> should clearly bear all signs that it is representative, accountable, >> transarent etc to the concerned stakeholder group. As I said in the >> set of guidelines I proposed - 'any such role should be taken as a >> responsibility on the behalf of the concerned stakeholder group'. >> >>> Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking >>> the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil >>> society to manage this type of process. >> >> Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final selection was >> not the right way to go about it. >>> >>> 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the >>> identification of civil society actors for participation in IG >>> processes >>> to the IGC. >> >> 100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that the >> WG on IGF improvements worte in its final report that selection of >> stakeholder reps should not be restricted to one body or group. True >> for civil society, and true for technical/ academic community and >> business. >> >>> The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are >>> clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) >>> claim >>> to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest >>> in, internet policy and governance. >> >> IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree that >> anyone suggesting any such thing must be countered appropriately. >> However, IGC is still perhaps the most open and inclusive network in >> global IG space, while its actual performance capacities have been >> ham-shackled considerably due to a lot of reasons, but again, on that >> separately. >> >>> With more time I would have liked >>> to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g. >>> rotation, and distribute the call even wider. >>> >>> 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to >>> go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community >>> whose experience and help I could rely on. >>> >>> These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and >>> effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although >>> transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. >> >> Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an incontestable >> aspect of all such processes. Actual process use may sometime vary >> and there may be differences on them, but there should be no two >> views about transparency. >> >>> But what is >>> considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the >>> IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a >>> transparent >>> and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best >>> results. >>> No process will be perfect. >>> >>> This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider >>> the >>> weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other >>> groups - >>> so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups. >> >> Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and >> representation processes better it is. However, I do not take this >> thing about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not of >> 'others'. For instance, I am quite concerned that small developing >> country businesses should be represented appropriately when business >> participates in global policy bodies, and I have a right to be so >> concerned. It is not a private affair of only those who do business. >> So, neither it is for a set of people to decide who would be defined >> as 'technical and academic community' for filling a given quota on a >> public body. It is everybody's business. It is a public issue. >> >>> >>> It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion, >>> facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe, >> >> >> >>> able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions. >> >> Most important is that those who do take up a public role on behalf >> of public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe' simply because >> some accountability and transparency questions are asked - as was >> done in case of tech/acad community's selection process recently. It >> is the public's right to do so. It is even worse when some other >> people begin to feel unsafe on behalf of these people with a public >> role - a rather strange display of which has recently been made on >> this list. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> Being >>> critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start >>> having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>>> First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting >>>> of the >>>> process. >>>> Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your >>>> hard work >>>> once selected. >>>> >>>> On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great >>>> earthquake >>>> and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far >>>> from it >>>> should be. >>>> That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. >>>> >>>> And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree >>>> with you. >>>> And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, >>>> hopefully >>>> drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to >>>> reviewing >>>> the past or existing ones. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/3/20 Adam Peake >>>> >>>>> Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And >>>>> Nnenna's given some great ideas. >>>>> >>>>> But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather >>>>> than a postmortem on what was and might have been. >>>>> >>>>> I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since >>>>> the >>>>> first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past >>>>> selections of >>>>> CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent >>>>> WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, >>>>> possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we >>>>> look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather >>>>> than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably >>>>> me included.) >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: >>>>>> The discussion, I think, has starte >>>>> d. It might have taken off in a >>>>>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. >>>>>> >>>>>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, >>>>>> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on >>>>> methodology. >>>>>> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) >>>>>> and we >>>>> still >>>>>> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. >>>>>> >>>>>> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full >>>>>> consensus, >>>>> but >>>>>> at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it >>>>>> not for >>>>>> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative >>>>>> "positions" for >>>>>> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles >>>>> document, >>>>>> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here >>>>>> will be >>>>> VERY >>>>>> helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: >>>>>> >>>>>> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For >>>>>> the >>>>> CSTD, >>>>>> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way >>>>>> Anriette >>>>> and >>>>>> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because >>>>>> I am in >>>>> so >>>>>> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there >>>>>> was a >>>>> "a >>>>>> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". >>>>>> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be >>>>>> tempted >>>>> to >>>>>> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG >>>>>> issues.. >>>>>> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to >>>>>> hear >>>>>> others on this though >>>>>> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. >>>>>> Should >>>>> we >>>>>> discuss a minimum quota? >>>>>> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma >>>>>> that any >>>>>> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to >>>>>> have the >>>>> same >>>>>> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we >>>>> strike >>>>>> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our >>>>>> paths >>>>>> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, >>>>>> issues >>>>> and >>>>>> manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who >>>>>> will >>>>> arrive >>>>>> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for >>>>> "qualified" >>>>>> people... >>>>>> What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must >>>>>> be made >>>>>> between experience and representation, or between experience and >>>>> opportunity >>>>>> for growth? >>>>>> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related >>>>>> issues) to >>>>>> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can >>>>>> someone say >>>>> "we" >>>>>> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be >>>>>> synonymous >>>>>> with "people who can travel and be there physically"? >>>>>> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an >>>>>> extreme need >>>>> to >>>>>> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that >>>>>> has >>>>>> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? >>>>>> ..... many more...:) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nnennna >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: parminder >>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for >>>>> forwarding my >>>>>> name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process >>>>>> employed >>>>> for >>>>>> the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done >>>>>> now or >>>>>> after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek >>>>>> directions from >>>>> the >>>>>> IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the >>>>>> final >>>>>> selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, >>>>>> for one, >>>>> do >>>>>> not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to >>>>> contribute - >>>>>> to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. >>>>>> What we >>>>> will >>>>>> get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just >>>>>> help >>>>> anyone >>>>>> in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even >>>>> better >>>>>> way. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so >>>>>> that I do >>>>> not >>>>>> appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a >>>>>> discussion >>>>> only >>>>>> after the process is completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being >>>>>> promoted by >>>>>> some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability >>>>>> is too >>>>>> easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very >>>>>> unfortunate, and >>>>>> against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand >>>>>> it. We >>>>> have >>>>>> a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who >>>>>> are not >>>>>> directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions >>>>>> regarding our >>>>>> internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much >>>>> prefer >>>>>> that we overdo it rather than underdo it. >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the >>>>> chances >>>>>> of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, >>>>>> because no >>>>>> one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on >>>>>> :).... >>>>>> However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have >>>>> already >>>>>> been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to >>>>> postpone >>>>>> raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final >>>>>> report >>>>> by >>>>>> the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from >>>>>> nominees for >>>>>> this working group before I released the names of the candidates. >>>>>> >>>>>> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one >>>>>> person >>>>>> did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the >>>>>> original 19 >>>>>> names. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to >>>>>> serve on >>>>>> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort >>>>>> they put >>>>>> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their >>>>>> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in >>>>>> preselecting the IGC nominees. >>>>>> >>>>>> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted >>>>>> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: >>>>>> >>>>>> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) >>>>>> >>>>>> Avri Doria (N America) >>>>>> Carlos Afonso (A America) >>>>>> Don McClean (N America) >>>>>> Grace Githaiga (Africa) >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) >>>>>> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) >>>>>> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) >>>>>> William Drake (Europe) >>>>>> >>>>>> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from >>>>>> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of >>>>>> people who >>>>>> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular >>>>>> expertise >>>>>> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case >>>>>> any of >>>>>> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >>>>>> Enhanced Cooperation* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Background* >>>>>> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian >>>>>> Palomino >>>>>> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >>>>>> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the >>>>>> final >>>>>> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >>>>>> >>>>>> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I >>>>>> approached 7 >>>>>> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >>>>>> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >>>>>> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I >>>>>> personally >>>>>> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> that know them and that have worked with them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person >>>>>> each >>>>>> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >>>>>> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >>>>>> them are such committed facilitators of civil society >>>>>> participation, I >>>>>> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >>>>>> >>>>>> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >>>>>> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >>>>>> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >>>>>> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >>>>>> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >>>>>> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >>>>>> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >>>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal >>>>>> point and >>>>>> convenor of the group. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling >>>>>> for much >>>>>> of the period that we had to do our work. >>>>>> >>>>>> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite >>>>>> anyone from >>>>>> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >>>>>> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >>>>>> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >>>>>> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >>>>>> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >>>>>> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a >>>>>> chance. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Nominees* >>>>>> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >>>>>> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to >>>>>> spread >>>>>> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from >>>>>> outside the >>>>>> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >>>>>> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am >>>>>> happy to >>>>>> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >>>>>> first in case they have any objection to this. >>>>>> >>>>>> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >>>>>> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >>>>>> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also >>>>>> 'endorsed' >>>>>> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >>>>>> >>>>>> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection >>>>>> processes >>>>>> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. >>>>>> I felt >>>>>> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned >>>>>> as a >>>>>> requirement in the call for nominations. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Scoring process* >>>>>> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >>>>>> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working >>>>>> group. >>>>>> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate >>>>>> against >>>>>> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the >>>>>> highest 5. >>>>>> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to >>>>>> score >>>>>> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination >>>>>> forms. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The criteria were as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >>>>>> processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >>>>>> >>>>>> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >>>>>> >>>>>> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in >>>>>> multi-stakeholder >>>>>> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing >>>>>> with >>>>>> conflicting interests. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Shortlist* >>>>>> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >>>>>> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank >>>>>> them in >>>>>> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >>>>>> regional and gender balance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >>>>>> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >>>>>> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >>>>>> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top >>>>>> 12 whom >>>>>> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I >>>>>> submitted >>>>>> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not >>>>>> sure >>>>>> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >>>>>> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >>>>>> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of >>>>>> the >>>>>> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >>>>>> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's >>>>>> decision, and >>>>>> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather >>>>>> not >>>>>> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >>>>>> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >>>>>> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >>>>>> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >>>>>> the broader internet community. >>>>>> >>>>>> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, >>>>>> every >>>>>> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. >>>>>> They >>>>>> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not >>>>>> have >>>>>> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >>>>>> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >>>>>> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >>>>>> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 29 17:43:42 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:43:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet In-Reply-To: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> References: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51560B0E.1020300@gmail.com> Mike Thanks for these well considered insights. 2 things, and a bit. Luxury & Innovation In Capitalist innovation dynamics, luxury has historically played a key role. So on the technical mission, there is need to consider the market and social, and realist, dynamics, of what these groups do. In other words, great leeway is needed in some sense. But in order to do this, as much is novel and path dependent, the institutional framework that makes this happen is critical to success, a more pragmatic if it ain't broke than we are used too ;) For the techies it /is/ more than just a possessiveness of their area of expertise, perhaps it is a price paid for specialisation. While design is typically in the creators hand, we do know that Microsoft (ab)used its Windows market dominance and integrated Internet Explorer into its operating system design (after Bill reportedly did not anticipate the growth of the net,was laggard on browsers), even though other technical options were imminently possible, and earned some anti-trust ire for it. So imho there is a need for luxury, with balance with innovation dynamics as competition authorities already know, but they too are permissive in some sense. Institutional JK Galbraith argued that what made the economic system so effective was to get people into a firm to cooperate. Entrepreneurially coordinating inputs of various skills (finance, marketing, sales design, engineering, info sys etc) so as to produce outcomes equivalent to what in earlier years individual geniuses like Edison did. Most things are governance by committee. Having all the /elements/ present made the process more robust. The nub of your point for me points to, by /restricting the skill/s brought to bear on the project /it increases the risks /to success, So from a purely procedural point of view tendencies to "restriction" is worrying. Of course if one is of the persuasion that there is clear boundary between technical and public interest, then this issue is moot (but with increasing complexity even ICANN is dealing more with Intellectual Property, something we have been advised here has naught to do with IG). If, howver, one does feel there is a regulatory function in /some /of the technical (as Lessig, who has received contemptuous consideration on this list, I think) then the lack of a procedural measure smacks of something rather unbecoming. As it is not a typical technical process, not even of the private sector (given the market orientation of some of the views). Of course if one believes that technology is/can be a social construction (e.g. why we don't just leave nuclear power stations to be run by Homer Simpson) then the imperative for this procedure is rather important, as you similarly recommend. Riaz On 2013/03/29 09:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the > Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in > which the discussion went, or rather didn't go. > > I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the > representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the > incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the > discussion. > > But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of > precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in > relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional > architecture for the "governance" of the Internet. > > Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem > unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I > could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact, > a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a > necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is > they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment > of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being > built on that platform. > > I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the > functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and > to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such > stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to > do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience. > > And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I > wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the > overall mission that I was attempting to pursue. > > But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter > in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the > longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but > if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or > technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission > that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the > technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall > organizational/social mission that we were pursuing. > > What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as > "stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some > statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as > being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship. > > Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is > clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the > Internet. Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will > arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder > or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the > various parties are bringing to those interactions. > > What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a > very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking > for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity > as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an > Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to > build for ourselves and our children. > > That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful > discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others > can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global > public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that > definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all > can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as > in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this > platform. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group > on Enhanced Cooperation > > hi, > > I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And > while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive > result all of this will have. > > As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the > choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to > hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? > > avri > > PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think > about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the > MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the > MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 17:53:08 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:53:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results -- new In-Reply-To: <5154BC94.1040004@cafonso.ca> References: <5154BC94.1040004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Carlos Alfonso...Me podrías explicar mas claro ¿Como es eso que Brasil cae más en el CBL... *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/28 Carlos A. Afonso > Dear people, > > [with apologies for eventual duplication] > > Brazil drops further in the CBL (Composite Blocking List), from 12nd to > 20th place. There is still a major broadband operator which has not yet > implemented the port 25 management policy, and as soon as this happens I > guess BR will drop significantly further: > > http://cbl.abuseat.org/**country.html > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 17:55:54 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:55:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] brazil's anti-spam campaign results -- new In-Reply-To: <5154BC94.1040004@cafonso.ca> References: <5154BC94.1040004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Carlos, qual eh o provedor? Abs On Mar 28, 2013 5:57 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear people, > > [with apologies for eventual duplication] > > Brazil drops further in the CBL (Composite Blocking List), from 12nd to > 20th place. There is still a major broadband operator which has not yet > implemented the port 25 management policy, and as soon as this happens I > guess BR will drop significantly further: > > http://cbl.abuseat.org/**country.html > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 18:00:42 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:00:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update In-Reply-To: <515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <51495889.4010109@itforchange.net> <1363765042.24254.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5151BB3E.9020105@apc.org> <5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net> <515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Si...estoy de acuerdo... habría que ver sus pro y sus contras... *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/3/28 parminder > > All > > There has been not much uptake here for a discussion on selections > procedures for civil society (CS) reps for various multistakeholder (MS) > bodies, but I would persist. This issue is important, and a 90 min workshop > at IGF is not going to solve/ address the problems/ issues involved. > > > On Wednesday 27 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anriette > > I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal point. For > selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the focal point was IGC. > It was asked to submit 5 names all of which were then put on the WG. I > understand that CSTD may this time have approached you since APC is the > only NGO working on information society issues that is in general > consultative status with the ECOSOC. Having being given this role, APC has > the right to take an independent decision on whether to accept it or pass > it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to reflect why did it lose that > role, it at all it is connected to its profile, stature, visibility or > performance. I have something to say on this matter but that separately. > > > In this email I will make some observations on the IGC selection process, > and in the next one of the focal point directed selection process. > > IGC has a clearly laid out selection process. The guidelines and > principles, both coming from the charter and precedents are basically > sound, although there may be some views for a possible rethink whether a > noncom based process should be augmented by a larger general voting > process. Diplo Foundation follows such a composite process. Right now I am > relatively neutral between the two kinds, and see advantages and > disadvantages in both. But maybe worth a discussion. > > However, what I was as a clear issue with the IGC selection process that > concluded recently, and also in the earlier IGC conducted ones, is the lack > of wide dissemination of call for nominations - and actively soliciting > nominations from outside groups. Now, if we do not do it, we would > obviously lose the role a CS intermediary and focal point for CS selection. > We should be clear, if we are nominating on CS's behalf we need to reach > out. And I think that it should largely be the responsibility of > coordinators to do such an extensive outreach, while the nomcom chair > should also do it. Or a voluntary sub committee should do it. > > And here I come what I see as the principal issue/ problem with the health > of IGC overall. IGC was supposed to have a dual character of a discussion > space and an active advocacy group. But the structure of the IGC is not > adequate to these twin tasks. (There may also be deeper reasons for such a > situation, but this is something most amenable to do something about.) And > for this reason is has largely been reduced to a good - well, mostly - > discussion space, but all activties on the advoacy/ action side have > suffered. I have always thought that there should be a members-only space > for IGC where procedural, action oriented activities can be worked out, > without the din and noise of the larger IG discussions that mostly rent the > IGC elist. This has become a classic case of overdoing openness killing > effectiveness. I can see that IGC will continue to be on the downward > spiral of action-/ advocacy-wise effectiveness, that it is on right now, > unless this and other corrective measures are taken- > > What is required in my view is to have a standing membership of the IGC - > and not the spontaneously occurring and dying membership at the moment of > voting. There should also be a members only elist for procedural and core > action oriented matters (at least some stages of such matters, while most > work being done on the open list). Anyone can become a member of IGC by > agreeing to its charter. However, once there is a members only space, in > addition to the discussion space, I expect there to be a greater sense of > ownership and responsibility to the group by its members. Connecting back > to the original subject of this email, in such circumstances; the best > course for the IGC to follow around a specific required selection process, > and distribution of duties etc for the purpose, can be accomplished in a > much better manner. > > parminder > > > > > 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, made > an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by > empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves. > > > This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked to provide > all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF improvements. And I agree a > movement away from 'black box' approach is good. But as you say, such an > improvement must consist in actually 'empowering the concerned stakeholder > group' - whereby the alternative process should clearly bear all signs > that it is representative, accountable, transarent etc to the concerned > stakeholder group. As I said in the set of guidelines I proposed - 'any > such role should be taken as a responsibility on the behalf of the > concerned stakeholder group'. > > Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking > the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil > society to manage this type of process. > > > Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final selection was not > the right way to go about it. > > > 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the > identification of civil society actors for participation in IG processes > to the IGC. > > > 100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that the WG on > IGF improvements worte in its final report that selection of stakeholder > reps should not be restricted to one body or group. True for civil > society, and true for technical/ academic community and business. > > The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are > clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) claim > to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest > in, internet policy and governance. > > > IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree that anyone > suggesting any such thing must be countered appropriately. However, IGC is > still perhaps the most open and inclusive network in global IG space, while > its actual performance capacities have been ham-shackled considerably due > to a lot of reasons, but again, on that separately. > > With more time I would have liked > to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g. > rotation, and distribute the call even wider. > > 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to > go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community > whose experience and help I could rely on. > > These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and > effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although > transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. > > > Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an incontestable > aspect of all such processes. Actual process use may sometime vary and > there may be differences on them, but there should be no two views about > transparency. > > But what is > considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the > IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a transparent > and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best results. > No process will be perfect. > > This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider the > weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other groups - > so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups. > > > Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and > representation processes better it is. However, I do not take this thing > about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not of 'others'. For > instance, I am quite concerned that small developing country businesses > should be represented appropriately when business participates in global > policy bodies, and I have a right to be so concerned. It is not a private > affair of only those who do business. So, neither it is for a set of people > to decide who would be defined as 'technical and academic community' for > filling a given quota on a public body. It is everybody's business. It is a > public issue. > > > It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion, > facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe, > > > > > able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions. > > > Most important is that those who do take up a public role on behalf of > public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe' simply because some > accountability and transparency questions are asked - as was done in case > of tech/acad community's selection process recently. It is the public's > right to do so. It is even worse when some other people begin to feel > unsafe on behalf of these people with a public role - a rather strange > display of which has recently been made on this list. > > parminder > > > Being > critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start > having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others. > > Anriette > > > > > > > > On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the > process. > Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work > once selected. > > On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great > earthquake > and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it > should be. > That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. > > And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with > you. > And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, > hopefully > drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to > reviewing > the past or existing ones. > > best, > > izumi > > > > 2013/3/20 Adam Peake > > Congratulations to the nominees, good luck. > > Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And > Nnenna's given some great ideas. > > But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather > than a postmortem on what was and might have been. > > I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the > first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of > CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent > WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some, > possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we > look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather > than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably > me included.) > > Adam > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > The discussion, I think, has starte > > d. It might have taken off in a > > not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now. > > In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, > thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on > > methodology. > > We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we > > still > > have not adopted principles for selection and for representation. > > The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, > > but > > at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for > discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. > > Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for > Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles > > document, > > that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be > > VERY > > helpful. > > My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: > > Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the > > CSTD, > > I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette > > and > > the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in > > so > > many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a > > "a > > clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information". > Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted > > to > > follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. > Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear > others on this though > Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should > > we > > discuss a minimum quota? > Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any > "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the > > same > > faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we > > strike > > the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths > while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues > > and > > manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will > > arrive > > "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for > > "qualified" > > people... > What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made > between experience and representation, or between experience and > > opportunity > > for growth? > Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to > which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say > > "we" > > and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous > with "people who can travel and be there physically"? > How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need > > to > > be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has > "selection, representation and travel" attached to it? > ..... many more...:) > > > Nnennna > > > ________________________________ > From: parminder > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > > Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it. > > I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for > > forwarding my > > name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC. > > Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed > > for > > the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or > after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from > > the > > IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this regard. > > We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final > selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, > > do > > not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to > > contribute - > > to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we > > will > > get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help > > anyone > > in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even > > better > > way. > > I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do > > not > > appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion > > only > > after the process is completed. > > I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by > some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too > easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and > against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We > > have > > a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not > directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our > internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much > > prefer > > that we overdo it rather than underdo it. > > parminder > > PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the > > chances > > of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no > one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :).... > However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have > > already > > been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to > > postpone > > raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report > > by > > the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it. > > > On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for > this working group before I released the names of the candidates. > > By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person > did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 > names. > > Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on > the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put > into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their > assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in > preselecting the IGC nominees. > > The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted > candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: > > (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) > > Avri Doria (N America) > Carlos Afonso (A America) > Don McClean (N America) > Grace Githaiga (Africa) > Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) > Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) > Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) > William Drake (Europe) > > I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from > developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who > had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise > to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of > the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. > > Best regards > > Anriette > > > On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on > Enhanced Cooperation* > > *Background* > I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino > de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society > participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing > countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final > 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. > > To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 > individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces > and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a > formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally > trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society > that know them and that have worked with them. > > I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each > from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In > recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of > them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I > invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. > > The composition of the selection group was as follows: > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa > Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia > Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America > Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America > Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe > Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator > Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator > Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and > convenor of the group. > > > I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much > of the period that we had to do our work. > > To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from > APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew > from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a > further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create > opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for > nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working > Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. > > *Nominees* > To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short > timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread > the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the > narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 > nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to > disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them > first in case they have any objection to this. > > *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* > Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society > networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' > or supported by other individuals or organisations. > > To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes > and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt > that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a > requirement in the call for nominations. > > *Scoring process* > Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my > understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. > The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against > each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. > The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score > candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. > > > The criteria were as follows: > > > * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy > processes. > > * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG > > * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel > > * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder > processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with > conflicting interests. > > > *Shortlist* > Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I > then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in > order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to > regional and gender balance. > > > *Submission to CSTD Chair* > After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up > with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly > ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom > I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted > to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure > yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that > the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. > > Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. > There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the > candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely > difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and > as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not > disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. > > I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated > themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, > there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through > participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from > the broader internet community. > > My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every > person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. > > > Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They > undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have > been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process > confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil > society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection > processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Mar 29 20:03:18 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:03:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Dr. Pouzin! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mt belated congratulations, grand Louis ;-) Well deserved! mc On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Indeed, our dear Louis, great surprise, great news!! > > izumi > > > 2013/3/21 Baudouin Schombe > >> Dear Louis, >> Better late than never. >> I join all friends and colleagues to congratulate you. Any work deserves >> a salary. >> >> in hopes to see us again >> Baudouin >> >> >> 2013/3/18 McTim >> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21831916#TWEET670307 >>> >>> >>> Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen >>> Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. >>> >>> Sir Tim Berners Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc >>> Andreessen will share the £1m award. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ >> ACADEMIE DES TIC >> At-Large Member >> NCSG Member >> >> email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com >> Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net >> tél:+243998983491 >> skype:b.schombe >> wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net >> blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Mar 30 04:34:54 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:34:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet In-Reply-To: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> References: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com>, at 12:22:23 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013, michael gurstein writes >But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of >precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in >relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" There has been quite a lot published in this regard. In particular the CSTD asked a specific list of ITC organisations to submit their remarks, which were then circulated in a report. This was before the CSTD appeared on many people's radar as a venue for debate, and perhaps things have moved on. Others can comment on that. Disclaimer: Today, I am not a representative of the NRO, but I was when the documents below were published, and I did attend the CSTD back then. The reports remain on the record. viz: two reports mentioned in paragraphs 4 & 5 here: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a66d77_en.pdf The NRO also produced a pamphlet: -- 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 Sat Mar 30 07:17:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:47:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Wow, Gotcha... Adam One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct an open host discussion in the democratic tradition. I am sick of this kind of petulant contemptuous responses to what is a siple and straight-forward effort to ask questions and improve democratic processes. But I dont think you understand democracy. In democracy, a few are 'given' roles of exercising power and all others take the role of seeking accountability. That is how it works, there is no other way.... And, of course, those in power resist being accountable, and develop various devices to do so - including having people around trying to disrupt democratic debates, and attributing motives... That is what I see happening here. There are repeated attempts to shut up those who question the processes of exercising power.... This is most un civil society like....... This kind of blatant foot-soldiering for those who excercise power in the status quo must stop. If this continues, it will kill this forum. And such a future I suspect may be looming rather close. We cannot keep expending our civil society credentials and credibility and think that it will not finally run out - just because we are at the same time getting friendlier to some powerful people. parminder > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder wrote: >> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. >> >> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical >> (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of >> organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational >> management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think >> that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the >> Internet'? >> > I think probably yes > > Adam > > > > >> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees >> from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on >> EC? >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not >>>> for >>>> the UN system..... >>>> >>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>>> erronoeus, >>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>>> been banished. >>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. >> >> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? >> Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld >> whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day >> to day operational management of the Internet'? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 30 07:41:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:11:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Wow, Gotcha... > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder wrote: >> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. >> >> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical >> (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of >> organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational >> management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think >> that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the >> Internet'? >> > I think probably yes What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard from the concerned focal point. I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder groups and to facilitate consultations '. Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it. Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even two music schools involved there.... But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with various field based Internet innovations, including for instance projects involving setting specific technical configurations for facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what to say about the 'academic' part.... I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the Internet - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR, root servers and perhaps country cctlds.... And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic, she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow interpretation of their definition. The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee - I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they out reach to. parminder > > Adam > > > > >> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees >> from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on >> EC? >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not >>>> for >>>> the UN system..... >>>> >>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>>> erronoeus, >>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>>> been banished. >>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. >> >> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? >> Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld >> whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day >> to day operational management of the Internet'? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 30 07:42:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:12:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5156CF8C.1060503@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 March 2013 04:47 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Wow, Gotcha... > > Adam > > One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct > an open host sorry, open honest not host > discussion in the democratic tradition. I am sick of this kind of > petulant contemptuous responses to what is a siple and > straight-forward effort to ask questions and improve democratic > processes. But I dont think you understand democracy. In democracy, a > few are 'given' roles of exercising power and all others take the role > of seeking accountability. That is how it works, there is no other > way.... And, of course, those in power resist being accountable, and > develop various devices to do so - including having people around > trying to disrupt democratic debates, and attributing motives... That > is what I see happening here. There are repeated attempts to shut up > those who question the processes of exercising power.... This is most > un civil society like....... This kind of blatant foot-soldiering for > those who excercise power in the status quo must stop. If this > continues, it will kill this forum. And such a future I suspect may be > looming rather close. We cannot keep expending our civil society > credentials and credibility and think that it will not finally run out > - just because we are at the same time getting friendlier to some > powerful people. > > parminder > > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >> wrote: >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. >>> >>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of >>> technical >>> (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is >>> "community of >>> organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day >>> operational >>> management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You >>> think >>> that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the >>> Internet'? >>> >> I think probably yes >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as >>> nominees >>> from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the >>> WG on >>> EC? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but >>>>> not >>>>> for >>>>> the UN system..... >>>>> >>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>>>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>>>> erronoeus, >>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have >>>>> simply >>>>> been banished. >>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. >>> >>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final >>> list? >>> Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a >>> country tld >>> whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged >>> in 'day >>> to day operational management of the Internet'? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 30 08:00:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for another constituency chooses? And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing positively to it. --srs (iPad) On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Wow, Gotcha... >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder wrote: >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst >>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would include. >>> >>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of technical >>> (and academic) community that the focal point gave us which is "community of >>> organizations and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational >>> management of the Internet and who work within this community" ? You think >>> that Internet2 is involved in 'day to say operational management of the >>> Internet'? >>> >> I think probably yes > > What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard from the concerned focal point. > > I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder groups and to facilitate consultations '. > > Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it. > > Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even two music schools involved there.... > > But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with various field based Internet innovations, including for instance projects involving setting specific technical configurations for facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what to say about the 'academic' part.... > > > I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the Internet - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR, root servers and perhaps country cctlds.... > > And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic, she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow interpretation of their definition. > > The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee - I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they out reach to. > > parminder > > > > > > >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as nominees >>> from the technical and academic community by the focal point for the WG on >>> EC? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but not >>>>> for >>>>> the UN system..... >>>>> >>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of the >>>>> 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point is >>>>> erronoeus, >>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to have simply >>>>> been banished. >>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken. >>> >>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final list? >>> Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running a country tld >>> whereby one qualifies through the above definition of being engaged in 'day >>> to day operational management of the Internet'? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 30 08:26:21 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:26:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 30 Mar 2013, at 07:17, parminder wrote: >> One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct an open host discussion in the democratic tradition. I tend to consider Adam and me of a similar Ilk*, I hope this belief of mine does not offend him (and this note certainly does not speak for him) > sorry, open honest not host I beleive that people of our ilk do participate openly and honestly in discussions. I also believe that we recognize 'gotcha' arguments when they are used. They have been a fundamental argument style of a certain type of politician since rhetoric was first described, and probably even before. You are arguing that they are a way of making power accountable, and in some adversarial circumstances I agree that they might even be the correct tool to use. In an open and honest discussion among civil society peers, I beleive they are a way to back your peers up against the wall and make them unwilling to engage. I beleive they become a barrier to open honest discussion and are the mark of hostile discussion. avri * Ilk - type, sort, class, category, group, set,breed, strain, bracket, genre, make, model,kind, brand, vintage, stamp, style, family,variety. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 30 08:36:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:06:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I agree. Given the habitual use of this tactic it may be wise to reconsider submitting parminder name as the caucus rep for this or any other future process --srs (htc one x) On 30 March 2013 5:56:21 PM Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Mar 2013, at 07:17, parminder wrote: > > >> One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct > an open host discussion in the democratic tradition. > > I tend to consider Adam and me of a similar Ilk*, I hope this belief of > mine does not offend him (and this note certainly does not speak for him) > > > sorry, open honest not host > > I beleive that people of our ilk do participate openly and honestly in > discussions. > > I also believe that we recognize 'gotcha' arguments when they are used. > They have been a fundamental argument style of a certain type of > politician since rhetoric was first described, and probably even before. > > You are arguing that they are a way of making power accountable, and in > some adversarial circumstances I agree that they might even be the > correct tool to use. In an open and honest discussion among civil > society peers, I beleive they are a way to back your peers up against > the wall and make them unwilling to engage. I beleive they become a > barrier to open honest discussion and are the mark of hostile discussion. > > avri > > > * Ilk - type, sort, class, category, group, set,breed, strain, bracket, > genre, make, model,kind, brand, vintage, stamp, style, family,variety. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 30 08:57:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:57:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:41 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as being > 'involved' in day to day operational management of the Internet.... Then you simply don't grok that the Internet2 folk are the Next Gen REN. Just as the original precursur to our current Internet was a REN, so is Internet2. -- 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 Sat Mar 30 09:51:22 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:51:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Message-ID: <5156EDDA.5030005@gmail.com> WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Published on 28 March 2013 @ 8:24 pm Print This Post Print This Post By William New , Intellectual Property Watch It was another record year in 2012 for cybersquatting cases filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Centre. In addition, WIPO announced results of a survey that show that its mediation services could benefit parties to technology-related disputes. Trademark holders filed 2,884 cases covering 5,084 internet domain names at the WIPO centre, a 4.5 percent increase over 2011, the previous record year, according to a press release. WIPO is one of the global locations for filing cases under the 1999 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Cases involved generic top-level domains (gTLDs like .com), and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs like .ch for Switzerland). Cases filed at WIPO in 2012 were decided by 341 panellists from 48 countries, with proceedings in 13 different languages, the top five being English, Spanish, Chinese, French and Dutch. The top three areas of activity last year were retail, fashion and banking/finance. Some 75 percent of all cases were in the .com domain. One in five cases were settled, and in 91 percent of cases, evidence of cybersquatting was found. WIPO said it also has begun to see disputes filed in relation to the new gTLDs being launched at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). As of 13 March, there were 71 cases filed under the Legal Rights Objections procedure. The WIPO centre also offers services for technology and other intellectual property disputes, under mediation, arbitration and expedited arbitration rules. As of December 2012, there had been nearly 300 cases filed under these rules over the past five years. Examples of areas of case filings include: patent infringement, patent licences, information technology transactions, distribution agreements for pharmaceutical and consumer products, copyright issues, research and development agreements, and media-related agreements. Survey: Tech Disputes Could Benefit from ADR WIPO today also announced the results of a survey of users of alternative dispute resolution methods for technology-related disputes. With nearly 400 respondents from more than 60 countries, it found that parties to technology agreements are concerned about the cost and time of resolving formal disputes, making WIPO's alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services more attractive. "While court litigation remains the default path, survey responses indicate that ADR offers attractive options in terms of cost and time, as well as enforceability, quality of outcome, and confidentiality," WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said in the release. Related Articles: * WIPO Holds Annual Arbitration Workshop Off-Site For First Time * European Patent Office Reports Record Patent Filings In 2012 * WIPO Reports Robust Growth In Demand For IP Rights In 2012 /William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch ./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 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 Sat Mar 30 12:34:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet In-Reply-To: <51560B0E.1020300@gmail.com> References: <005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com> <51560B0E.1020300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02dc01ce2d64$78e27690$6aa763b0$@gmail.com> Tks Riaz, A couple of comments in return… From: Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 2:44 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet Mike Thanks for these well considered insights. 2 things, and a bit. Luxury & Innovation In Capitalist innovation dynamics, luxury has historically played a key role. So on the technical mission, there is need to consider the market and social, and realist, dynamics, of what these groups do. In other words, great leeway is needed in some sense. But in order to do this, as much is novel and path dependent, the institutional framework that makes this happen is critical to success, a more pragmatic if it ain't broke than we are used too ;) For the techies it is more than just a possessiveness of their area of expertise, perhaps it is a price paid for specialisation. While design is typically in the creators hand, we do know that Microsoft (ab)used its Windows market dominance and integrated Internet Explorer into its operating system design (after Bill reportedly did not anticipate the growth of the net,was laggard on browsers), even though other technical options were imminently possible, and earned some anti-trust ire for it. So imho there is a need for luxury, with balance with innovation dynamics as competition authorities already know, but they too are permissive in some sense. [MG>] I guess what I was referring to/attempting to invoke was the technical community's "higher angels"… we all know about the other (MS etc.) stuff, but as with for example, the debate around nuclear weapons a significant strand of the technical community (who were responsible for the research involved in the development of nuclear weapons) argued for the need for the development of nuclear energy in the public interest; and while they didn't prevail at the time--they were in the midst of (another?) Cold War--the public articulation of their stance was and remains a constant and very important theme in those discussions. A clear statement not only about the technical responsibility of the technical community (as per the documents that Roland pointed us to), but also about the broader social/public responsibility would I think be very significant as background to the emerging discussions around EC and other similar global Internet policy areas. Institutional JK Galbraith argued that what made the economic system so effective was to get people into a firm to cooperate. Entrepreneurially coordinating inputs of various skills (finance, marketing, sales design, engineering, info sys etc) so as to produce outcomes equivalent to what in earlier years individual geniuses like Edison did. Most things are governance by committee. Having all the elements present made the process more robust. The nub of your point for me points to, by restricting the skills brought to bear on the project it increases the risks to success, So from a purely procedural point of view tendencies to "restriction" is worrying. [MG>] Yes, and that was precisely the point of my, dare I say, somewhat quizotic initiative vis a vis the T/A selection process. I feel no embarrassment at presenting myself as a technical expert adding some necessary "variety" and "skills" (as per your comment) to the mix. The WG is, I think impoverished by not having a broader range of skills and experience that it can draw upon including those that would come from the community informatics community. Of course if one is of the persuasion that there is clear boundary between technical and public interest, then this issue is moot (but with increasing complexity even ICANN is dealing more with Intellectual Property, something we have been advised here has naught to do with IG). [MG>] A distinction between the technical and the public interest is possible only for those who are completely wedded to a status quo where no public interest perspective is being articulated and, not being articulated, is not being pursued ie. a situation where might inevitably makes right since what we are left with is a more or less completely unregulated Hobbesian state of nature i.e. a war of each against all. If, howver, one does feel there is a regulatory function in some of the technical (as Lessig, who has received contemptuous consideration on this list, I think) then the lack of a procedural measure smacks of something rather unbecoming. As it is not a typical technical process, not even of the private sector (given the market orientation of some of the views). Of course if one believes that technology is/can be a social construction (e.g. why we don't just leave nuclear power stations to be run by Homer Simpson) then the imperative for this procedure is rather important, as you similarly recommend. [MG>] Yes, of course, the technical is political--only the truly naïve or the self-delusional would disagree… But it serves the status quo interests extremely well to argue against this position since the values being hardwired in as technically "neutral" inevitably (and in this instance, it is hoped, invisibly) favour certain commercial and national interests over others and most importantly without consideration even being given to the broader global public interest, i.e. an Internet for All. Mike Riaz On 2013/03/29 09:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in which the discussion went, or rather didn't go. I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the discussion. But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional architecture for the "governance" of the Internet. Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact, a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being built on that platform. I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience. And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the overall mission that I was attempting to pursue. But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall organizational/social mission that we were pursuing. What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as "stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship. Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the Internet. Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the various parties are bringing to those interactions. What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to build for ourselves and our children. That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this platform. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation hi, I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive result all of this will have. As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? avri PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Mar 30 13:06:03 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:06:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:36 AM: > ... it may be wise to reconsider submitting parminder name as the > caucus rep for this or any other future process This is one person's view. Others will have a very different take. More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth, useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will be civil discourse about differences. As has been noted, that has been in short supply. Coordinators please note. David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Mar 30 19:46:22 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:46:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1 to David's points below. Time to reflect on new opportunities. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Mar 30, 2013 6:06 PM, "David Allen" wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:36 AM: > >> ... it may be wise to reconsider submitting parminder name as the caucus rep for this or any other future process > > > This is one person's view. Others will have a very different take. > > > More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth, useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will be civil discourse about differences. As has been noted, that has been in short supply. Coordinators please note. > > David > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 30 20:47:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:17:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Civil discourse ideally needs a response on the same lines, not unmodified tactics that others too have noted as an adversarial form of debate. In such cases there are only two alternatives left, completely disengage, which would involve leaving those views unchallenged and that'd not be in the est interests of the caucus, or oppose them further, which sets up the sort of vicious cycle that you noted. --srs (iPad) On 30-Mar-2013, at 22:36, David Allen wrote: > On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:36 AM: > >> ... it may be wise to reconsider submitting parminder name as the caucus rep for this or any other future process > > This is one person's view. Others will have a very different take. > > > More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth, useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will be civil discourse about differences. As has been noted, that has been in short supply. Coordinators please note. > > David > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 30 23:28:51 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 03:28:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Avri As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? [Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of “Enhanced Cooperation” (EC) are emphasizing the definition of “multi-stakeholderism” (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS – i.e., the definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to “our respective roles.” While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states, without civil society or the private sector’s full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop ‘public policy’, and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on “public policy” development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing). That’s for starters…;-) Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root – I do think that’s still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not “inter”nationalization but de-nationalization. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Mar 31 06:03:36 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:03:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Milton for moving the debate from the composition of the WG to the substance of enhanced cooperation. Two comments here: 1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different processes and it should remain separat. 2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the context of para. 34. 35a reads: "a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues." This comes from the Geneva Declaration from 2003. But based on the Geneva language, WGIG started its work in 2004 and delivered the wanted definition in 2005 which includes not only the language of the "respective roles" but adds that this roles has to played out on the basis of "shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and linked to sovereign rights of states to a procedure of sharing decision making with other stakeholders. In my eyes, this was the real substantial innovation in Tunis. What I have seen from arguments in Dubai, when the IG resolution became the subject of a controversy, was that some ITU member states (representing the same governments who will be also represented in the UNCSTD WG) try to play this game to put Geneva against Tunis by ignoring the progress which was reached via the WGIG. Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to improve the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among ITU and ICANN on an equal footing in their respective roles avoiding the duplication of mandates by enhancing communication, coordination and collaboration (the famous Meissen EC³). The ITU included in a footnote (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the wish for collaboration. But nothing practical came out. However, after Hammadoun and Fadi had breakfest in Baku (November 2012) and Dinner in Davos (January 2013) and the ITU invited Fadi to speak in Dubai and UNESCO invited Fadi to speak in Paris, the climate among the two leaders has moved beyond the frosty relationship between Toure and Beckstroem. This does not yet mean that we can reach progress quickly. The ITU and Mr. Toure is in the hands of the member states (as Fadi is in the hands of the constituencies). Insofar both the UNCSTD WG as well as the WTPF will be interesting indicators whether we can move forward with "shared decision making procedures" among stakeholders. My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34 contradicts 35 fundamentally and it is the challenge now to find out, what "sharing" means when it comes to the execution of "sovereign rights and responsibilties of states" (will we see the emergence of a concept of shared or collaborative sovereignty?) and how this can be further enhanced on a collaborative basis with all stakeholders and put into a precedural framework. Insofar, the new Ad Hoc IGF Working Group on Internet Governance Principles will become another challenging playing ground. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller Gesendet: So 31.03.2013 05:28 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Betreff: RE: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Avri As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? [Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) are emphasizing the definition of "multi-stakeholderism" (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS - i.e., the definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to "our respective roles." While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states, without civil society or the private sector's full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop 'public policy', and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on "public policy" development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing). That's for starters...;-) Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root - I do think that's still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not "inter"nationalization but de-nationalization. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 31 11:08:57 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:08:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Before any logic to justify - civility looks, I think, to renounce ad hominem, even to apologize for what got perilously close. (And most certainly, no individual is the arbiter of what is "in the [b]est interests of the caucus.") David On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:47 PM: > Civil discourse ideally needs a response on the same lines, not > unmodified tactics that others too have noted as an adversarial form > of debate. > > In such cases there are only two alternatives left, completely > disengage, which would involve leaving those views unchallenged and > that'd not be in the est interests of the caucus, or oppose them > further, which sets up the sort of vicious cycle that you noted. > > On 30-Mar-2013, at 22:36, David Allen > wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:36 AM: >> >>> ... it may be wise to reconsider submitting parminder name as the >>> caucus rep for this or any other future process >> >> This is one person's view. Others will have a very different take. >> >> >> More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth, >> useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there >> will be civil discourse about differences. As has been noted, that >> has been in short supply. Coordinators please note. >> >> David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 31 11:13:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:13:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130331151347.GB12229@hserus.net> David Allen [31/03/13 11:08 -0400]: >Before any logic to justify - civility looks, I think, to renounce ad >hominem, even to apologize for what got perilously close. > >(And most certainly, no individual is the arbiter of what is "in the >[b]est interests of the caucus.") Hi I don't claim to speak for the caucus, just myself. And I am sorry if the situation got out of hand - but adversarial reasoning tends to cause this at times. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Mar 31 11:35:11 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:35:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <20130327032526.GC24298@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1 On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > > > > > > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public > > interest > > Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been > responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG > systems over many decades. These systems have created the most > successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history. > > -- > 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 avri at ella.com Sun Mar 31 11:44:42 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:44:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Responding to elist aggression was Re: [] Final composition ... In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1224B0A4-149E-4F2F-97B2-6A64A9761FFE@ella.com> On 30 Mar 2013, at 20:47, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > In such cases there are only two alternatives left, completely disengage, which would involve leaving those views unchallenged and that'd not be in the est interests of the caucus, or oppose them further, which sets up the sort of vicious cycle that you noted. what i am trying to learn to do, and part of my reason for a self imposed 3 messages rule (that i sometimes transgress), is to 1. meet the arguments head on, 2. explain & refute any misunderstanding if possible 3. last cleanup And then disengage. For me, the hardest part is learning to give others the last word even when they are saying things that I interpret as mean to me and to my friends and others i repsect. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mar 31 11:51:43 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:51:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <971A35B6-B0CB-4359-9109-225F6993A367@acm.org> Hi, Thanks to both of you. I have always been troubled by the Roles & Responsibilities language in the TA. It was a topic that never got adequately covered in WGIG. Still respecting the Chatham House rules that were in place, several of the participants argued that these had already been established and agreed on and pretty much forced the acceptance of these definitions into the off-topic category. The chair supported this. I remember how frustrated that made me, and beleive others in the room. So thanks for bring it back up as an underlying issue that needs to be explored. Thanks avri TA, Tunis Agenda On 31 Mar 2013, at 06:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Milton for moving the debate from the composition of the WG to the substance of enhanced cooperation. > > Two comments here: > > 1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different processes and it should remain separat. > > 2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the context of para. 34. 35a reads: "a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues." This comes from the Geneva Declaration from 2003. But based on the Geneva language, WGIG started its work in 2004 and delivered the wanted definition in 2005 which includes not only the language of the "respective roles" but adds that this roles has to played out on the basis of "shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." > > My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and linked to sovereign rights of states to a procedure of sharing decision making with other stakeholders. In my eyes, this was the real substantial innovation in Tunis. What I have seen from arguments in Dubai, when the IG resolution became the subject of a controversy, was that some ITU member states (representing the same governments who will be also represented in the UNCSTD WG) try to play this game to put Geneva against Tunis by ignoring the progress which was reached via the WGIG. > > Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to improve the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among ITU and ICANN on an equal footing in their respective roles avoiding the duplication of mandates by enhancing communication, coordination and collaboration (the famous Meissen EC³). The ITU included in a footnote (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the wish for collaboration. But nothing practical came out. However, after Hammadoun and Fadi had breakfest in Baku (November 2012) and Dinner in Davos (January 2013) and the ITU invited Fadi to speak in Dubai and UNESCO invited Fadi to speak in Paris, the climate among the two leaders has moved beyond the frosty relationship between Toure and Beckstroem. This does not yet mean that we can reach progress quickly. The ITU and Mr. Toure is in the hands of the member states (as Fadi is in the hands of the constituencies). Insofar both the UNCSTD WG as well as the WTPF will be interesting indicators whether we can move forward with "shared decision making procedures" among stakeholders. > > My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34 contradicts 35 fundamentally and it is the challenge now to find out, what "sharing" means when it comes to the execution of "sovereign rights and responsibilties of states" (will we see the emergence of a concept of shared or collaborative sovereignty?) and how this can be further enhanced on a collaborative basis with all stakeholders and put into a precedural framework. Insofar, the new Ad Hoc IGF Working Group on Internet Governance Principles will become another challenging playing ground. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller > Gesendet: So 31.03.2013 05:28 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Betreff: RE: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > > > Avri > > > > > > As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done? > > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) are emphasizing the definition of "multi-stakeholderism" (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS - i.e., the definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to "our respective roles." > > While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states, without civil society or the private sector's full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop 'public policy', and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on "public policy" development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing). > > That's for starters...;-) > > Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root - I do think that's still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not "inter"nationalization but de-nationalization. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ocl at gih.com Sun Mar 31 13:37:39 2013 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:37:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps Message-ID: <51587463.10300@gih.com> Dear all, I have recently shared my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" with colleagues in ICANN's At-Large community. This report is divided into two parts: 1. What happened at WCIT 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large Although this report contains my personal interpretation of the events that took place, I also make recommendations for the actors of the multi-stakeholder model to address in the near future. The report can be downloaded from: http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012 Happy reading, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Mar 31 16:20:46 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:20:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A011B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang: > -----Original Message----- > Two comments here: > > 1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You > are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own > interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different > processes and it should remain separate. [Milton L Mueller] OK. But how separate are they, really? Is the UN CSTD more hospitable a clime than the ITU? Are they both not fronts in the same battle? > 2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the > context of para. 34. [Milton L Mueller] Meh. Paragraph 34, which has the WGIG "working definition of Internet governance," contains the same irritating "in their respective roles" qualifier. You are still safely contained in your box. > My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective > role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. > 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other > stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and [Milton L Mueller] I don't see that there at all, alas. The fact of the matter is that if you are relying entirely on WSIS documents the game is rigged against true Multi-staleholderism. The whole point of that exercise was for sovereigntist states to assert (no matter how no-op and futile) their authority to make something called "public policy" for the internet. > Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to > improve the coordination of the activities of international and > intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with > Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A > multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all > levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among [Milton L Mueller] That's relatively good. But it can't be used to override or ignore the bad stuff. > The ITU included in a footnote > (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at > its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the > wish for collaboration. [Milton L Mueller] Actually that is not quite right. I checked the original Res. 101, which was dated 2006. It includes in the main text - not a footnote - a desire to collaborate with internet organizations such as IETF, RIRs, etc. Conspicuously missing from that list is ICANN. But the 2010 variant expresses a general desire for collaboration and then moves the list of specific organizations to a footnote. And there - miraculo - the list contains ICANN. > My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they > signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34 [Milton L Mueller] I think they did, and that's why they got the 4 dirty words into it: "in their respective roles", as Avri suggests. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t