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" <apisan at unam.mx> 
Date: 01/03/2013  05:57  (GMT+01:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/c83c8813/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri 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: <fa1t9i6bbf0h5ikrd3tcp970.1362122393021@email.android.com>

All of the above i think

"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

>Or exegesis?
>
>
>
>
>------------
>C. A. Afonso
>
>-------- Original message --------
>From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx> 
>Date: 01/03/2013  05:57  (GMT+01:00) 
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/3a6235e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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>
	<BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
	<213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrMfWLy3kCr7Sk+okj1xFrL2L51QRfUJ8uwqsjEJ2FcXg@mail.gmail.com>

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" <apisan at unam.mx> 
Date: 01/03/2013 05:57 (GMT+01:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/1012e430/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From tracey at traceynaughton.com  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: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <A9DCF85A-AD89-44B7-ABED-903AB01AACC8@traceynaughton.com>

Grace, wonderful!
Best to you,
Tracey

On 01/03/2013, at 7:31 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:

Good people
Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. 

Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing  faith in me. 

Opening Remarks
Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants

As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10.

The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:
·         Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in global reach.
·         At the same time most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)
·         Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. 
·         Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating adoption and use of internet.
·         Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues.
·         Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in general.
·         Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. 
·         A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community.

However:
 
The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data protection online.
 
Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls for an  understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it carries, and the controls that apply to such content.
 
As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and therefore needs to be preserved.
 
There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.
 
Conclusion
The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right to information.
 
As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.
 
We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure.
 
Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address  issues 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/371189c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
	<BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CABKLyKgpYVc09JtYXZQgKUeMmGK2_18toV6mm8KMZotYBWcB-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Grace,

Thank you. Great job and I can identify with you!

Sarah


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Good people
> Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the
> opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and
> bestbits.
>
> Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor,
> Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing
>  faith in me.
>
> *Opening Remarks*
>
> *Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants*
>
> *
> *
>
> As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
> participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
> active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
> that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely
> interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in
> the WSIS +10.****
>
>
> The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:
> ****
>
> ·         Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute
> figures, in percentage per country, in global reach. ****
>
> ·         At the same time most people in the world still can't access
> the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics,
> disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited
> bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)****
>
> ·         Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are
> susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing
> infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion
> and scarce resources. ****
>
> ·         Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which
> are also facilitating adoption and use of internet. ****
>
> ·         Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive
> consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information.There is much
> wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues. **
> **
>
> ·         Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the
> Internet and on our lives in general.****
>
> ·         Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which
> people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind
> is free. ****
>
> ·         A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and
> shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human
> Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its
> mark in the wider IG community.****
>
> *
> *
>
> *However:*
>
>
>
> The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and
> promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data
> protection online. ****
>
>
>
> Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls
> for an  understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
> shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
> carries, and the controls that apply to such content.****
>
>
>
> As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can
> attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS
> doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and
> therefore needs to be preserved.****
>
>
>
> There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge
> divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental
> right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to
> information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is
> secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
> rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the
> right to information.****
>
> ** **
>
> As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a
> reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but
> that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where
> to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.****
>
> ** **
>
> We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and
> must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address  issues rai
> sed by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rightsvalues,andbe
> negotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. ****
>
>
>
> A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be
> a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed and
> participatory manner by its users.          ****
>
> ** **
>
> I thank you for your attention.****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/cc4c747d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/a5430f44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AIGF_RPRT_LQ.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2275436 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/a5430f44/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/c8ee2d40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  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: <CA+YNoKgORZKOB63O=h1qsD+-cm8Xov+54UrG+EBJXGcxJv3Xrw@mail.gmail.com>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/765f9641/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pranesh at cis-india.org  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/3e7e23b7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  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: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh5Huoe=1sn79wC=e7Zg+Wt+Doo8oZsAPoU4L8Sy_0Gzw@mail.gmail.com>

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 <qshatti at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/ef587215/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri 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: <CA+EjHYooArhUU47h7Oy_Op5_iByBVhOEsanKe-=tzPyWUGx6Uw@mail.gmail.com>

Excerpt from EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 11.4, 27 February 2013
<edrigram at edri.org>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/33dbbbe1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From capdasiege at gmail.com  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: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPm5NK49DFE1s2DjsbfxJUG-FDL1EqyU_Gp7nuhzFH=N_c6qUA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks you AlShatti for this report, you do a beautiful job.

Best



2013/3/1 Qusai AlShatti <qshatti at gmail.com>

> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/48ed3686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri 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: <CAPm5NK49DFE1s2DjsbfxJUG-FDL1EqyU_Gp7nuhzFH=N_c6qUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPm5NK49DFE1s2DjsbfxJUG-FDL1EqyU_Gp7nuhzFH=N_c6qUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBuApMPUCuuBg4nptrhBB6ZE8=uQ6fiCuArfZDj3DR3kw@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Dear Qusai,
>
> Shukriya! The report was very interesting and informative and the Agenda
> looked really interesting.
>

Best Regards,
Sala


>
>
> 2013/3/1 Qusai AlShatti <qshatti at gmail.com>
>
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130302/463df578/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  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: <CACAaNxgtQjt-5TnLxZ_T-5swNBnX-d=OnzKQsnfo8KLgC14AVw@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent speech overall, I have just one nit to pick:


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

<snip>


>  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/d9750739/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri 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: <CACAaNxgtQjt-5TnLxZ_T-5swNBnX-d=OnzKQsnfo8KLgC14AVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxgtQjt-5TnLxZ_T-5swNBnX-d=OnzKQsnfo8KLgC14AVw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent speech overall, I have just one nit to pick:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/7df9e033/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri 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>
 <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>,<213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY151-W14F30F375319B476DAEA6B4FF0@phx.gbl>


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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/ca7a4186/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri 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: <ad9b17c87a38b19c430a74cf99807188@localhost.localdomain>
References: <ad9b17c87a38b19c430a74cf99807188@localhost.localdomain>
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 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
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: <CAMz5XN6cfcyTWDMnqQbbG5SC+ut71J2Dt26kiFQaCALxBfZTLA@mail.gmail.com>

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 <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/a6c0cfd3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From william.drake at uzh.ch  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 <nb at bollow.ch> 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: <CAMz5XN42cWwuq7oqFA9FrXO++AO_=kJUOUpFoTt8OX0V0+bjFA@mail.gmail.com>

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 <avri at acm.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130302/b1db5896/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat 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: <CA+YNoKgORZKOB63O=h1qsD+-cm8Xov+54UrG+EBJXGcxJv3Xrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05pgpavtiup1r66c7ofnp9oq.1362121155605@email.android.com>
 <05d401ce164f$44dc0360$ce940a20$@gmail.com>
 <CA+YNoKgORZKOB63O=h1qsD+-cm8Xov+54UrG+EBJXGcxJv3Xrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <TBctC+juSgMRFAsR@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CA+YNoKgORZKOB63O=h1qsD+-cm8Xov+54UrG+EBJXGcxJv3Xrw at mail.gmail.com>, at 
19:10:43 on Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> 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 <http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/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 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/new-evidence-to-be-introduced-against-bradley-manning.html>."

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 
<http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=46c0b685-a392-4400-a9a3-5e058d29e635>." 
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 
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/bradley-manning/>**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 
<http://www.collateralmurder.com/>a U.S. helicopter attack that killed 
two Reuters' cameramen, and shot at a van trying to offer relief to the 
<http://www.collateralmurder.com/>injured, wounding two children who 
were in the van <http://www.collateralmurder.com/>. 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 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html>casualties 
in Iraq 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html>; 
and that U.S. forces were silently complicit in abuses by allied Iraqi 
government forces 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam>; 
it uncovered repeated abuses by civilian contractors 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/middleeast/24contractors.html?pagewanted=all> 
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 
<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/obamas-war-whistle-blowers/38106/>. 
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 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DE2D71539E133A25757C2A9649D946095D6CF>and 
other political 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DE2D71539E133A25757C2A9649D946095D6CF>activists 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DE2D71539E133A25757C2A9649D946095D6CF>. 
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 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html>."

*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130303/43d3ce0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/6fe832bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
 <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>

How to disentangle both?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>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 <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global
> public interest, more like?
>
> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I
> doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is
> labelled as left/South.
> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking
> or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of
> being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an
> open and free Internet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no
> connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other
> fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few
> exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a
> criterion that some seek.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like
> the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that
> Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse
> jurisdictional treatment etc.
>
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to
> she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour,
> Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the
> frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
>
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition
> to a considerable extent.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet
> Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>
> "*23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)*
> *Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.*
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of
> holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise
> nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and
> whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed
> by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are
> concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy,
> and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent
> such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market
> oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the
> perceived unbalanced."
>
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information
> Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's
> Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from
> Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily
> be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The
> criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being
> mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of
> course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are
> widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the
> Internet and here are just three:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>
>
>
>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>> >
>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130303/de032414/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  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: <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>
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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> How to disentangle both?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?
>>>> 
>>>> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
>>>>> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>>>>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>>>>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>>>>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
> 
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/562c931f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
 <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
 <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
 <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
 <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
 <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com<mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:

How to disentangle both?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> 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 <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:

A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?

Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:

It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.






Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:

I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:

In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.

>From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:

The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.

Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:



On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?

--srs (iPad)

Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:

"23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
• While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."

 Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.

For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.

The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.

There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/



On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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




--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828<tel:%2B679%203544828>
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851




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

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

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




--
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br<http://ufrgs.br>
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu<http://pubpol.umass.edu>
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com<http://gmail.com>
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/76a30b44/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
 <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
 <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
 <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
 <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
 <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 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 
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com<mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> How to disentangle both?
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> 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 
> <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global 
> public interest, more like?
>
> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. 
> And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest 
> is labelled as left/South.
> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop 
> speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is 
> a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we 
> hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no 
> connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of 
> other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a 
> few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if 
> that's a criterion that some seek.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something 
> like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the 
> way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, 
> diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society 
> to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market 
> behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the 
> frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
>
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov 
> definition to a considerable extent.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet 
> Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>
> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights 
> of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the 
> precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all 
> stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address 
> the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual 
> property rights holders are concerned about the high number of 
> infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed 
> to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the 
> other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the 
> impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information 
>  Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's 
>  Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming 
>  from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as 
> easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the 
> line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on 
> software etc.
>
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from 
> being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne 
> Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal 
> instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the 
> Internet and here are just three:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, 
> riaz.tayob at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828<tel:%2B679%203544828>
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br<http://ufrgs.br>
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu<http://pubpol.umass.edu>
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com<http://gmail.com>
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/48416c28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C8576@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <13d3391697a.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <BB203F96-20B9-4F63-AA17-CB865EBAE5C2@hserus.net>

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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> How to disentangle both?
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
>>>>>>> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>>>>>>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>>>>>>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/75ae352d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon 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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com> <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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

How to disentangle both?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?

 

Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.

Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.

 

 

 

 



Sent from my iPad


On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.

 

>From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.

 


Sent from my iPad


On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  

 

Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?

--srs (iPad)


Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:

"23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
• While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."

 Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.

For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.

The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.

There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/




On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:

> Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>
>> http://keionline.org/node/1655


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

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

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




-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

P.O. Box 17862

Suva

Fiji

 

Twitter: @SalanietaT

Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro

Tel: +679 3544828 <tel:%2B679%203544828> 

Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

 

 

 


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

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

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





 

-- 
Diego R. Canabarro

http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br

diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/ae7b4772/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
 <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
 <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
 <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
 <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
 <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>
 <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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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 
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How to disentangle both?
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global 
> public interest, more like?
>
>
>
> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. 
> And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest 
> is labelled as left/South.
>
> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop 
> speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is 
> a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we 
> hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no 
> connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of 
> other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a 
> few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if 
> that's a criterion that some seek.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something 
> like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the 
> way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, 
> diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>
>
>
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society 
> to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market 
> behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the 
> frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
>
>
>
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov 
> definition to a considerable extent.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet 
> Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>
> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights 
> of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the 
> precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all 
> stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address 
> the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual 
> property rights holders are concerned about the high number of 
> infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed 
> to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the 
> other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the 
> impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information 
>  Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's 
>  Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming 
>  from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as 
> easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the 
> line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on 
> software etc.
>
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from 
> being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne 
> Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal 
> instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the 
> Internet and here are just three:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>
>
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
> >
> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> P.O. Box 17862
>
> Suva
>
> Fiji
>
>
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
> Tel: +679 3544828 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
>
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/9a230210/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon 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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com> <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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

How to disentangle both?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?

 

Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.

Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.

 

 

 

 



Sent from my iPad


On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.

 

>From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.

 


Sent from my iPad


On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  

 

Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.

--srs (iPad)


On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?

--srs (iPad)


Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:

"23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
• While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."

 Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.

For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.

The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.

There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/





On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:

> Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>
>> http://keionline.org/node/1655


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

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

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




-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

P.O. Box 17862

Suva

Fiji

 

Twitter: @SalanietaT

Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro

Tel: +679 3544828 <tel:%2B679%203544828> 

Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

 

 

 


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

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

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





 

-- 
Diego R. Canabarro

http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br

diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/99635e3f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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$@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com> <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com> <43D81738-E206-4947-9042-8BA1A711B3A6@hserus.net> <08d001ce18a4$bb38ad40$31aa07c0$@gmail.com> <13d3444ec05.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <090801ce18ac$46813f00$d383bd00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FD2C8850-D989-415D-AE89-665129AE4E91@hserus.net>

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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How to disentangle both?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?
>  
> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>  
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>  
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>  
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
> 
> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
> 
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
> 
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
> 
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
> 
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
> >
> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>  
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/0000178a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon 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 <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <CAJwbTiBuApMPUCuuBg4nptrhBB6ZE8=uQ6fiCuArfZDj3DR3kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC2SYrOCHe8KgTh8K1ndFnUXDT=MUep-semzPgUw=0cMfpfv=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPm5NK49DFE1s2DjsbfxJUG-FDL1EqyU_Gp7nuhzFH=N_c6qUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBuApMPUCuuBg4nptrhBB6ZE8=uQ6fiCuArfZDj3DR3kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-OTvXR18SNct2iktD73OkfXXm7+3bu+8FokFhrH=a+TQ@mail.gmail.com>

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
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 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 <qshatti at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/a4634c55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
References: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
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 
> <http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?sid=5&artid=363&evtflg=False>. 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 
> <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/04/should-industry-support-ldcs-request-for-unlimited-time-to-implement-the-trips-agreement-absolutely/>.
>
> 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 <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>
> Skype: nashtonhart
> http://www.ccianet.org <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/77fdc2b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
References: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
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 <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/44a53399/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  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: <CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com>
	<CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.com>

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 <skiden at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 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<salanieta.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 <devonrb at gmail.com>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/48f7306a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Mon 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?
  <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>

Posted on March 4, 2013 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html> 
by WashingtonsBlog <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog>


      Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent

We reported 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html> 
last year:

    The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat
    teams have been deployed against them. See this
    <http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html>,
    this
    <http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/swat-teams-enforcing-copyright/>,
    this
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#Investigating_copyright_infringement>
    and this <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml>.

    As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale
    Law School notes
    <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/enough-already-the-sopa-debate-ignores-how-much-copyright-protection-we-already-have/252742/#bio>:

        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 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americas-future-russians-and-chinese-use-copyright-crusade-to-crush-government-criticism.html>**.*

We noted last month that the "cyber-security" laws have /very little/ to 
do with security 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html>.

The Verge reported 
<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3989686/white-house-says-cyber-threats-include-web-site-defacement-ip-theft> 
last month:

    In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced
    <http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3982302/president-obama-signs-cybersecurity-order>
    a sweeping executive order
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>
    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)
    <http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.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
    <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c>, 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
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>
    as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House
    appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning
    <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular+reasoning> when it
    comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the
    right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation
    <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/obama-s-cybersecurity-executive-order-falls-short>,
    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
    <http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors> 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 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/government-uses-anti-terror-laws-to-crush-dissent-and-help-big-business.html> 
to help giant businesses ... and to crush those who speak out against 
their abusive practices 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/government-and-big-banks-joined-forces-to-violently-crush-peaceful-protests.html>, 
labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/the-fbi-drowning-in-counter-terrorism-money-power-and-other-resources-will-apply-the-term-terrorism-to-any-group-it-dislikes-and-wants-to-control-and-suppress.html>.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/business-economics>, Politics / 
World News 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/politics-and-war-and-peace>. 
Bookmark the permalink 
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/88e80f26/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Mon 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
References: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/99c2540f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon 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: <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com> <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.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 <skiden at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 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<salanieta.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 <devonrb at gmail.com>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/1a325860/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <GaGpWR08.1362426313.9610960.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/7979f794/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ACOP sponsor 7.2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 141225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/7979f794/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  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 <anriette at apc.org> 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: <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/427b85da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
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 <ca at cafonso.ca 
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> 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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/914c09b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon 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>
	<CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCyJSVTZB6yp4=RBscoJ4WpeszxXS7MmjY3fXix68eZVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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 <ca at cafonso.ca> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/f2287a49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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 <ca at cafonso.ca> 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: <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/c54b521a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/09d7d54e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>,<CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:

> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/cf3638b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>

"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 <suresh at hserus.net>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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>
> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/0dd22c7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  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: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>,<CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/e5608dbd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon 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: <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uF_pA4Mf=h2f-kZVu7F5C4DWzRJO4R-gehtY0=tYf=VtA@mail.gmail.com>

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 <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/cec5e0ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/9fa62d66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <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 <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
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
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/e6d67c09/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <513522FF.309@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjfit04-6+OxO7_y9sp=PNop2vALCQuO-eXZysemcNF3g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
	<5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130305014011.68381935@quill.bollow.ch>

Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
	<5134D0B3.5010809@gmail.com>
	<20130305014011.68381935@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCUzbYS8FdCjcUToROVXavx72qBiCs_nFXgZa9L23MWFg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Nick :)

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/42fcc393/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Pranesh,

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]:
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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: <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>,<CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]:
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>,<CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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 <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 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 <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> > McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]:
> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>,<CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com> <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.

<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support>
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support/applicant-support-fact-sheet-20feb12-en.pdf>
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support/new-gtld-applicant-support-overview-20feb12-en.pdf>


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  <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>

Project:  Outreach evaluation & recommendation 
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38044058>

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: <CACAaNxjfit04-6+OxO7_y9sp=PNop2vALCQuO-eXZysemcNF3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxjfit04-6+OxO7_y9sp=PNop2vALCQuO-eXZysemcNF3g@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> McTim [2013-03-05 02:36]:
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>>> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <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: <CAJwbTiAAHUkkGgKKpDx-REvtEwOWtucSuz7B7ZJznnZzu89MSg@mail.gmail.com>

*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/5a72d15b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon 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: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com> <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.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 <skiden at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com> 
>>>>> 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<salanieta.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 
>>>>>>> <devonrb at gmail.com>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/8c1ac919/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxjfit04-6+OxO7_y9sp=PNop2vALCQuO-eXZysemcNF3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhFiaFO7_L+T01fb45gRJsFzDup5zbt69o+euE=WdWssA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> 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: <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com>

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 <suresh at hserus.net>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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
> Posted on March 4, 2013<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
> by WashingtonsBlog <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog>
>  Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent
>
> We reported<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html>last year:
>
> The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams
> have been deployed against them. See this<http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html>,
> this<http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/swat-teams-enforcing-copyright/>,
> this<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#Investigating_copyright_infringement>and
> this <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml>.
>
> As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law
> School notes<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/enough-already-the-sopa-debate-ignores-how-much-copyright-protection-we-already-have/252742/#bio>
> :
>
> 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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americas-future-russians-and-chinese-use-copyright-crusade-to-crush-government-criticism.html>
> **.*
>
> We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to
> do with security<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html>
> .
>
> The Verge reported<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3989686/white-house-says-cyber-threats-include-web-site-defacement-ip-theft>last month:
>
> In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3982302/president-obama-signs-cybersecurity-order>a sweeping executive
> order<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>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)<http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.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 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c>, 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<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to
> be relying to some degree on circular reasoning<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular+reasoning>when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the
> right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/obama-s-cybersecurity-executive-order-falls-short>,
> 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<http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors>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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/government-uses-anti-terror-laws-to-crush-dissent-and-help-big-business.html>to help giant businesses … and to crush
> those who speak out against their abusive practices<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/government-and-big-banks-joined-forces-to-violently-crush-peaceful-protests.html>,
> labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/the-fbi-drowning-in-counter-terrorism-money-power-and-other-resources-will-apply-the-term-terrorism-to-any-group-it-dislikes-and-wants-to-control-and-suppress.html>
> .
>  This entry was posted in Business / Economics<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/business-economics>,
> Politics / World News<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/politics-and-war-and-peace>.
> Bookmark the permalink<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.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
>
>


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/563c165d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org>,<CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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.

<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support>
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support/applicant-support-fact-sheet-20feb12-en.pdf>
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support/new-gtld-applicant-support-overview-20feb12-en.pdf>


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  <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>

Project:  Outreach evaluation & recommendation
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38044058>

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: <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com>
 <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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 
> <suresh at hserus.net>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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As 
> Terrorism?<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
> > Posted on March 4, 
> 2013<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
> > by WashingtonsBlog <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog>
> >  Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent
> >
> > We 
> reported<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html>last 
> year:
> >
> > The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams
> > have been deployed against them. See 
> this<http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html>,
> > this<http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/swat-teams-enforcing-copyright/>,
> > 
> this<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#Investigating_copyright_infringement>and
> > this <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml>.
> >
> > As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law
> > School 
> notes<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/enough-already-the-sopa-debate-ignores-how-much-copyright-protection-we-already-have/252742/#bio>
> > :
> >
> > 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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americas-future-russians-and-chinese-use-copyright-crusade-to-crush-government-criticism.html>
> > **.*
> >
> > We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to
> > do with 
> security<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html>
> > .
> >
> > The Verge 
> reported<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3989686/white-house-says-cyber-threats-include-web-site-defacement-ip-theft>last 
> month:
> >
> > In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama 
> announced<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3982302/president-obama-signs-cybersecurity-order>a 
> sweeping executive
> > 
> order<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>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)<http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.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 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c>, 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<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>as 
> originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to
> > be relying to some degree on circular 
> reasoning<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular+reasoning>when 
> it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the
> > right-leaning think tank The Heritage 
> Foundation<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/obama-s-cybersecurity-executive-order-falls-short>,
> > 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<http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors>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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/government-uses-anti-terror-laws-to-crush-dissent-and-help-big-business.html>to 
> help giant businesses … and to crush
> > those who speak out against their abusive 
> practices<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/government-and-big-banks-joined-forces-to-violently-crush-peaceful-protests.html>,
> > labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad 
> guy<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/the-fbi-drowning-in-counter-terrorism-money-power-and-other-resources-will-apply-the-term-terrorism-to-any-group-it-dislikes-and-wants-to-control-and-suppress.html>
> > .
> >  This entry was posted in Business / 
> Economics<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/business-economics>,
> > Politics / World 
> News<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/politics-and-war-and-peace>.
> > Bookmark the 
> permalink<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/47363f19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon 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>
 <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGwXO0Pc_pwwjgrHjYGrzB1zSW=3Opm4oWkb2gKocNr8A@mail.gmail.com>

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
<suresh at hserus.net>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 <suresh at hserus.net>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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
>> Posted on March 4, 2013<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html>
>> by WashingtonsBlog<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog>
>>  Government Uses Law As a Sword Against Dissent
>>
>> We reported<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/ter%C2%B7ror%C2%B7ist-noun-anyone-who-disagrees-with-the-government-2.html>last year:
>>
>> The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams
>> have been deployed against them. See this<http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html>,
>> this<http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/swat-teams-enforcing-copyright/>,
>> this<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#Investigating_copyright_infringement>and
>> this <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml>.
>>
>> As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law
>> School notes<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/enough-already-the-sopa-debate-ignores-how-much-copyright-protection-we-already-have/252742/#bio>
>> :
>>
>> 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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/americas-future-russians-and-chinese-use-copyright-crusade-to-crush-government-criticism.html>
>> **.*
>>
>> We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have *very little* to
>> do with security<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html>
>> .
>>
>> The Verge reported<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3989686/white-house-says-cyber-threats-include-web-site-defacement-ip-theft>last month:
>>
>> In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced<http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3982302/president-obama-signs-cybersecurity-order>a sweeping executive
>> order<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>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)<http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.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 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c>, 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<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity>as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to
>> be relying to some degree on circular reasoning<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular+reasoning>when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the
>> right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/obama-s-cybersecurity-executive-order-falls-short>,
>> 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<http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors>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<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/government-uses-anti-terror-laws-to-crush-dissent-and-help-big-business.html>to help giant businesses … and to crush
>> those who speak out against their abusive practices<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/government-and-big-banks-joined-forces-to-violently-crush-peaceful-protests.html>,
>> labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/the-fbi-drowning-in-counter-terrorism-money-power-and-other-resources-will-apply-the-term-terrorism-to-any-group-it-dislikes-and-wants-to-control-and-suppress.html>
>> .
>>  This entry was posted in Business / Economics<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/business-economics>,
>> Politics / World News<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/cat/politics-and-war-and-peace>.
>> Bookmark the permalink<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130304/ad5a9cb0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon 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: <CA+MV=uGwXO0Pc_pwwjgrHjYGrzB1zSW=3Opm4oWkb2gKocNr8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGwXO0Pc_pwwjgrHjYGrzB1zSW=3Opm4oWkb2gKocNr8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C188A23F-395B-46A2-B282-615D7C030AD7@hserus.net>

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 <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/8a46bce6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  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: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CA+EjHYp4HZXAQ2ZuTKWtwFGT6dY7ZBcy1UHyAxjN_xZJS+JGJw@mail.gmail.com>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/f76274f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jcurran at istaff.org  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: <CA+MV=uGwXO0Pc_pwwjgrHjYGrzB1zSW=3Opm4oWkb2gKocNr8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134C935.5060708@gmail.com> <2FA4216B-2AA8-4787-B13D-46B85D8AFC3D@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uE2GeLWD=Jquh84rYP3Gib=+rHNfem1Sy3hdM3F+AFcbQ@mail.gmail.com> <13d38d0af12.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uGwXO0Pc_pwwjgrHjYGrzB1zSW=3Opm4oWkb2gKocNr8A@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com> <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/771c58c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue 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: <CACAaNxhFiaFO7_L+T01fb45gRJsFzDup5zbt69o+euE=WdWssA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <513522FF.309@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxjfit04-6+OxO7_y9sp=PNop2vALCQuO-eXZysemcNF3g@mail.gmail.com> <51354F9A.3010502@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxhFiaFO7_L+T01fb45gRJsFzDup5zbt69o+euE=WdWssA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <ca at cafonso.ca> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/ace11c38/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMKgB+f=v26Yhnd6uhdtosij0b77utJrzvOiBp+U-C9iQ@mail.gmail.com>

Finally!

Fouad

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/1c78a878/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <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 <Guru at ITforChange.net>
>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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/52de0bb4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<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 <william.drake at 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>

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 <nb at bollow.ch> 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 <william.drake at 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/90163edf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <apisan at unam.mx>
>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> 
>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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/61563aa8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue 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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 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 <apisan at unam.mx>
> >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
> Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> >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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> >>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/60c869f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>

Guru,

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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!

<nonsense snipped>

> 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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <apisan at unam.mx>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
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<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net<mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>]
Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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 <dl at panamo.eu<mailto:dl at panamo.eu>> wrote:
>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu<mailto:dl at panamo.eu>> 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<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/292160b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  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: <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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'.

>
> <nonsense snipped>

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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.gmail.com>

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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> 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'.
>
>>
>> <nonsense snipped>
>
>
> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <1362481116.76868.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjTByzWZMmceg_YW8DW5s8z4KCWjtCrAtcxMjPciYP6uw@mail.gmail.com>

HI Imran,

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> 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: <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuffc-DOB+Kr+bQHdKCWOv6GcFk1JT7RJ=nqMDd7hzCCw@mail.gmail.com>

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 <dogwallah at gmail.com>

> 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 <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
> 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'.
> >
> >>
> >> <nonsense snipped>
> >
> >
> > 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/f0b66242/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue 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: <CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
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 <nashton at ccianet.org> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org> <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/fc9eb347/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue 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: <CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca>
	<CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130305181620.0090c6ff@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/427010f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <nashton at ccianet.org> 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: <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net> <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com> <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com> <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com> <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.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:
<snip>
> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <55C9AA66-9C3B-448E-B7BA-9BF013031364@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uEfFjhZGQRsXs-eoBkZmP1C3MwyMuumB9V-mdwvL+ARoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgPFYAjTEpFwHg2a39a8i=HQ__AvFp0BXCxZCP+TEeNzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51352842.1020504@cis-india.org> <CACAaNxiTQ9tpXbntpmxFdpUJ_OUVeu01-JKZhsZm-Wecat1zGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51355039.90700@cafonso.ca> <5135BF79.7090201@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh1os4xDzff=6SueFGE6k0x3+Jo+Z-uDJVvy_qahOYgTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135FBFC.40409@gmail.com> <CACAaNxhHVS-W9XMCeQqLZbO3D_fpu9Xy5AUXy6Ng3mp4GmHzww@mail.gmail.com>
 <513652D5.5090504@internetnz.net.nz>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhhfGq3pue6fWibC7TS8y_s+Nb-jTwnmiM7Q=bNge0+vA@mail.gmail.com>

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.

<sigh>

-- 
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: <ADBF4880-05D5-450E-A4BC-EF7586E535C9@istaff.org>

A very interesting and slightly retrospective view of community gTLDs and 
some aspects of the ICANN gTLD program - 

<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130305_interview_with_avri_doria_on_the_history_of_community_gtlds/>

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: <CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5134D409.8030107@cafonso.ca> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2013 03:39 AM, McTim wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/5eb6df5b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5135823C.7080704@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxidiWMQk79AzctJjZ_6rDA_tPXVH7e32iLa5H0q5NzDhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5136C504.8020409@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxirL=5653URVbMzdK_3sJhGSOJYfNQZKnQ9WJ55+3qDPA@mail.gmail.com>

Guru,

you misconstrue (or misunderstand my position:

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com> <62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com> <CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.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 <skiden at gmail.com 
> <mailto:skiden at gmail.com>> 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 <devonrb at gmail.com
>     <mailto:devonrb at gmail.com>> 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
>         <mailto: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
>             <devonrb at gmail.com <mailto:devonrb at gmail.com>> 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
>                 <mailto:salanieta.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
>                     <devonrb at gmail.com <mailto:devonrb at gmail.com>> 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
>                         <mailto: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
>                             <tel:%2B613%2054706853>
>                             mobile: +61 413 019 707
>                             <tel:%2B61%20413%20019%20707>
>                             skype: tnaughton9999
>
>
>
>                             On 24/02/2013, at 7:05 AM, Salanieta T.
>                             Tamanikaiwaimaro
>                             <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>                             <mailto: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 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>                             Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>                             <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                         -- 
>                         Devon Blake
>                         Special Projects Director
>                         Earthwise Solutions Limited
>                         29 Dominica Drive
>                         Kgn 5
>                         ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534
>                         <tel:876-968-4534>, Mobile, 876-483-2632
>                         <tel: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 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>                     Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 -- 
>                 Devon Blake
>                 Special Projects Director
>                 Earthwise Solutions Limited
>                 29 Dominica Drive
>                 Kgn 5
>                 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534 <tel:876-968-4534>,
>                 Mobile, 876-483-2632 <tel: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 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>             Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         Devon Blake
>         Special Projects Director
>         Earthwise Solutions Limited
>         29 Dominica Drive
>         Kgn 5
>         ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534 <tel:876-968-4534>, Mobile,
>         876-483-2632 <tel: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/fef3de1b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <apisan at unam.mx>
>To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> 
>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 <apisan at unam.mx>
>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> 
>>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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
>>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/63221f55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed 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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 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 <apisan at unam.mx>
> >To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>; 
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru 
> गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> >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 <apisan at unam.mx>
> >>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
> Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> >>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 <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> >>>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/4efd019c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  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>
 <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
 <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <apisan at unam.mx>
To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
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 <apisan at unam.mx>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
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<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] en nombre de Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net<mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>]
Enviado el: lunes, 04 de marzo de 2013 23:27
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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 <dl at panamo.eu<mailto:dl at panamo.eu>> wrote:
>> Le 04/03/13 22:31, McTim a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu<mailto:dl at panamo.eu>> 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<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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



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

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/57e3b9a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130305/38af17e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130305180601.74fc4612@quill.bollow.ch>
	<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BBEE74@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
Message-ID: <20130306082802.060e1389@quill.bollow.ch>

Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
 <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 <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com>
	<CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5136D800.90802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20130306090138.2b46ee3f@quill.bollow.ch>

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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>
	<CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<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 <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
> 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>,<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 <ias_pk at yahoo.com
> <mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com>> 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org> <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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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: <F354D75D-181A-4217-A4FE-E7D5C72ED9AE@ccianet.org>
 <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 <nashton at ccianet.org> 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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
	<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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <CAJwbTiA1Y-FrU5-=UAr=GNzFmUuDKsLN42GyktJKR941kw46ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<62542758-4DD8-429A-8035-728247563ADC@traceynaughton.com>
	<CAE1T72RLGQ2DMpP3P1P+GXoCWavrOM1Z5OppOcfY23pMAQk7bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiD_SHn3uigc=_tfjc2-mEBByvGZzpV7FrsZwVdsmW6=iA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R2FxD9HgpPfY7H-mRPoKL=XvVfctV1sJvGJA6r=1L3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiA32Qy2nY62JdR3MnwvLZ+_PSaB0rwXzT5cH7zi25sCVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72R7oa8Y03oe6X-3nrpdMktphdSO=-BBRJjw00B=A_ksHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKLyKhOP0qxC8MzbD_az0MsD3kkKpoYeVUs+YVAcxdjsvZVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE1T72Q5Gt-DLFb5+9y-E=h1gX-4G9Udqs7CFWeBXHD9iOv51Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5134F69F.6080800@apc.org>
	<5135706F.8080903@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72SoLu+D5CGiSH1UhHA6U7eu3Qimv+8bKm=9mpyVtN5VNw@mail.gmail.com>

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 <anriette at apc.org>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 <skiden at gmail.com><skiden at gmail.com>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 <devonrb at gmail.com><devonrb at gmail.com>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 <devonrb at gmail.com><devonrb at gmail.com>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
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com><salanieta.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 <devonrb at gmail.com><devonrb at gmail.com>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/af8a2f0b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
	<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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
 <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: <CA+MV=uE7rsweTidG4vS7giDe0mOryAK1-KMhFOLamwuP0DduaA@mail.gmail.com>

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 <nb at bollow.ch> 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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/dea96039/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  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: <D3840485-5252-402D-B1C2-171AA533A669@acm.org>
References: <510086BE.6010100@ITforChange.net> <BEA1BF65-ED2B-4017-8492-57B36F62AB22@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgkq8hrN+yJLOsiV86gX+v=wjyssEzjOxpq4tupzfqBdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFabd1KSrxtjqrHa=zmXN=vw0-hF2j_rCaagZ+JsPaka0qHyzw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxjhGwk06L2UKt5vcCyMZK5T0au09QXhXyQ2uOFHZXp92w@mail.gmail.com> <056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com> <m+GQtoL2iVARFAZ9@internetpolicyagency.com> <51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com> <F8y4tJPmJWARFAM0@internetpolicyagency.com> <066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com> <naZQUbdLPkARFArS@internetpolicyagency.com> <5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net> <miMQK+RcHvARFAYf@internetpolicyagency.com> <51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net> <51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net>,<-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com> <A1D768E7-105B-4EBF-BB39-9840189712BA@acm.org> <D3840485-5252-402D-B1C2-171AA533A669@acm.org>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/6a7fb7d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  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: <D3840485-5252-402D-B1C2-171AA533A669@acm.org>
References: <510086BE.6010100@ITforChange.net> <BEA1BF65-ED2B-4017-8492-57B36F62AB22@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgkq8hrN+yJLOsiV86gX+v=wjyssEzjOxpq4tupzfqBdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFabd1KSrxtjqrHa=zmXN=vw0-hF2j_rCaagZ+JsPaka0qHyzw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxjhGwk06L2UKt5vcCyMZK5T0au09QXhXyQ2uOFHZXp92w@mail.gmail.com> <056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com> <m+GQtoL2iVARFAZ9@internetpolicyagency.com> <51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com> <F8y4tJPmJWARFAM0@internetpolicyagency.com> <066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com> <naZQUbdLPkARFArS@internetpolicyagency.com> <5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net> <miMQK+RcHvARFAYf@internetpolicyagency.com> <51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net> <51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net>,<-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com> <A1D768E7-105B-4EBF-BB39-9840189712BA@acm.org> <D3840485-5252-402D-B1C2-171AA533A669@acm.org>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/5235faac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed 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: <CA+MV=uE7rsweTidG4vS7giDe0mOryAK1-KMhFOLamwuP0DduaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <20130305121805.3e7305d6@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CAGNNhGxL0-k3k9oj5A3PhR8qZGQxg+47jDu8wer1FHz74_Q06A@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <CA+MV=uE7rsweTidG4vS7giDe0mOryAK1-KMhFOLamwuP0DduaA@mail.gmail.com>
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 
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com> 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 <nb at bollow.ch> 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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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 <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130307/6ab35151/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrpt-bj0Ov=gj9uSPr5yXs8_a9c_EEOdi-SXhZtzTsNjA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/1b187d64/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed 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: <CA+EjHYrpt-bj0Ov=gj9uSPr5yXs8_a9c_EEOdi-SXhZtzTsNjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <CA+EjHYrpt-bj0Ov=gj9uSPr5yXs8_a9c_EEOdi-SXhZtzTsNjA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<BEA1BF65-ED2B-4017-8492-57B36F62AB22@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxgkq8hrN+yJLOsiV86gX+v=wjyssEzjOxpq4tupzfqBdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFabd1KSrxtjqrHa=zmXN=vw0-hF2j_rCaagZ+JsPaka0qHyzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjhGwk06L2UKt5vcCyMZK5T0au09QXhXyQ2uOFHZXp92w@mail.gmail.com>
	<056f01cdfa49$375b4f60$a611ee20$@gmail.com>
	<m+GQtoL2iVARFAZ9@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<51015DF8.6070803@gmail.com>
	<F8y4tJPmJWARFAM0@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<066a01cdfa5a$01b28610$05179230$@gmail.com>
	<naZQUbdLPkARFArS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<5102AD28.9090901@ITforChange.net>
	<miMQK+RcHvARFAYf@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<51034FAC.4040605@ITforChange.net>
	<51035219.9070200@ITforChange.net>
	<-8558355287633436504@unknownmsgid>
	<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DC37165@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
	<02d401cdfbed$2b918370$82b48a50$@gmail.com>
	<A1D768E7-105B-4EBF-BB39-9840189712BA@acm.org>
	<D3840485-5252-402D-B1C2-171AA533A669@acm.org>
	<5137895B.10202@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XCLwTGLeTLhjy0x1P5LWuFPTjzdeAQJdgPkJ=DrzdtKOmw@mail.gmail.com>

Great idea Avri from my side also. I would be happy to contribute to
such glossary in Russian

2013/3/6 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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: <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
	<CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
	<9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
	<F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
	<9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
	<B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
	<7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
	<13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130306222339.1b801173@quill.bollow.ch>

On 3 Mar 2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>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: <CA+EjHYrpt-bj0Ov=gj9uSPr5yXs8_a9c_EEOdi-SXhZtzTsNjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org> <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch> <CA+EjHYrpt-bj0Ov=gj9uSPr5yXs8_a9c_EEOdi-SXhZtzTsNjA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/1abcd6f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  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: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net> <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
 <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+MV=uGVdzxOrB_JgeKJcvWagD_xpMJgH5G6PNOWL055SDVKng@mail.gmail.com> <20130306222339.1b801173@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uET_PFioaw4s4ncEpkXLNhuTn55wOYsQaaKBaKtOpWSqQ@mail.gmail.com>

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 <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On 3 Mar 2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 21 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130306/a23962fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <CAEkQTBhTOKh0kH87m42ddPy79mLZM=j1MzixH2JFVMAuHbs6Lg@mail.gmail.com>

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 <pdandjinou at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Remote participation
To: "africann at afrinic.net" <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130307/9547be20/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130307/43157038/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DEST-CEE2013-cfp.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 694483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130307/43157038/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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> <CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com> <51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com> <51351501.1050607@panamo.eu> <CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com> <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130307/2ba1dd1b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu 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>
	<CAJwbTiD=YrP4uXEPDfjbvNT-_vw15TajRiH49NK6XXXoe_wMsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51350F32.7040707@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxiwdi995jhX9T0DPav-FEi1bE7knqht577iUYC-GC7Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<51351501.1050607@panamo.eu>
	<CACAaNxhkZ-dk+2r8FwcjPkgerqYkBCzH9Y53TGqFEB90SKiTPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<513522FF.309@panamo.eu>
	<51354ED2.6030504@cafonso.ca>
	<51388151.3090403@panamo.eu>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1L1h9qWQn+i1ZdybvKY6SLYUVHCEGrQgZop__hDu6fXnQ@mail.gmail.com>

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 <dl at panamo.eu> 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: <CAJwbTiBsddSD+_F868yiU6RH6zDrh8-Dp+RDd6bw1OauTzQ7Jw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Ofcom has just published interesting research on Online Copyright
Infringement. See below:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Updates <Updates at ofcom.org.uk>
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<http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/copyright-infringement-trackerw2/?utm_source=updates&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=online-copy-infridge-wave2-research>,
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130308/dc6382a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Fri 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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
Message-ID: <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>, at 18:13:15 on 
Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> 
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: <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>

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 <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> 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: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch>

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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> 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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130310/0877bc8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  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: <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130310/b0e50eb0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
 <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
Message-ID: <OVOqn6GpeNPRFAmZ@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www at wwinf1e08>, at 
19:29:00 on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> 
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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>,<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<http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130310/bc28684d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch>
References: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <DBA01A46-D79D-4C55-8086-E04AC22A40C9@privaterra.org>

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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> 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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130310/a1426dd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  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: <DBA01A46-D79D-4C55-8086-E04AC22A40C9@privaterra.org>
References: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch> <DBA01A46-D79D-4C55-8086-E04AC22A40C9@privaterra.org>
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 <http://twitter.com/netfreedom>
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org <mailto: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 <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG <mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>>
>>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
>>> <mailto: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 <robin at ipjustice.org 
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> 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 
>>>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals?format=pdf> 
>>>>> 	Print 
>>>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals?tmpl=component&print=1&page=> 
>>>>> 	E-mail 
>>>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=42ef01ae9ac6d898e95bdbd47cf6dcf5b8c30395> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: 
>>>>> <http://intgovforum.org/cms/2013/MAG.Summary.Report.1March.r2.pdf>.)
>>>>> 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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/>    e: 
>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/f5ec2e31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
 <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
Message-ID: <PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27 at W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, at 
20:46:30 on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch 
<apisan at unam.mx> 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: <PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
 <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>
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
<apisan at unam.mx> 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: <http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511276/free-speech-in-the-era-of-its-technological-amplification/>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/af54d058/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  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: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
 <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
 <PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
Message-ID: <aKEfAEjBVbPRFAlr@internetpolicyagency.com>


>Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <aKEfAEjBVbPRFAlr@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
	<20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
	<007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
	<j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
	<896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
	<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
	<PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
	<aKEfAEjBVbPRFAlr@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1KsgBbJBqjin86xhxuKbbKeSdJaEHS-dBqkOHW31v+ptA@mail.gmail.com>

Doesn't Free do something like this (Free, French ISP)

Adam



On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch> <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" <rguerra at privaterra.org> 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> 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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/b1fdec0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon 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: <DBA01A46-D79D-4C55-8086-E04AC22A40C9@privaterra.org>
References: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch> <DBA01A46-D79D-4C55-8086-E04AC22A40C9@privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <8882A850-FBB1-4C69-B1B8-01513548E13F@uzh.ch>

Hi Robert

On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>> 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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/8021055e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  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: <CAFabd1KsgBbJBqjin86xhxuKbbKeSdJaEHS-dBqkOHW31v+ptA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF07BB0CA8.27B716AB-ONC1257B24.004F9DC1-C1257B24.004FA5FE@unog.un.org>
 <20F8715E-8077-4268-83CE-2EE838850ADE@uzh.ch>
 <007a01ce19c4$b9c71700$2d554500$@hellmonds>
 <j1ShvJnbvFPRFABP@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E1UEdxN-0007EU-KP@se6.mailspamprotection.com>
 <896052561.21733.1362940140871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e08>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC5A27@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
 <PzeKu2Iq8YPRFA0q@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BC6CE9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>
 <aKEfAEjBVbPRFAlr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CAFabd1KsgBbJBqjin86xhxuKbbKeSdJaEHS-dBqkOHW31v+ptA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <sbrC03m8$bPRFAjV@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAFabd1KsgBbJBqjin86xhxuKbbKeSdJaEHS-dBqkOHW31v+ptA at mail.gmail.com>, at 
19:50:42 on Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 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
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> 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: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch> <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" <rguerra at privaterra.org> 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>> 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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/cbb9b1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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: <FCC9FB8D-8516-4A2A-9EB6-88857907EDBB@uzh.ch> <B88C74DC-29BA-41C7-82F4-A7A15B0EBAAD@uzh.ch> <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" <rguerra at privaterra.org> 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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>

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 <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>

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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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-pr
ocess/1288-2013-preliminary-call-for-workshops-proposals>
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
<http://intgovforum.org/cms/2013/MAG.Summary.Report.1March.r2.pdf> 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 <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130311/320d160e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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: <CAFabd1JCAuEnLsdi8dWLwU5XeSzApgpn=4GuGEO1DTR+YScj3w@mail.gmail.com>

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 <javascript:;>]
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/77d51fec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/bdd75b27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/9e203a4c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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 " <http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1987/20120387> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/d57e4406/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/9266ca93/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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 " <http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1987/20120387> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/822019dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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: <CAFabd1JCAuEnLsdi8dWLwU5XeSzApgpn=4GuGEO1DTR+YScj3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <569FABF3-F13C-410B-8E0D-66D1AF6CCF63@gmail.com>	<084a01ce1f2c$110fbff0$332f3fd0$@gmail.com> <CAFabd1JCAuEnLsdi8dWLwU5XeSzApgpn=4GuGEO1DTR+YScj3w@mail.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 <javascript:;> ]
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
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4
3> &id_secret=22720195-8fdd43
08
Unsubscribe Now:
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-
97c5b007&post_id=20130311153255:75E12600-8A82-11E2-99E3-91A56B16ADAE>
&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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/910be58f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From 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 <gurstein at gmail.com> 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/3eb29441/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/e4152056/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue 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: <D475CBA7-ED8F-45B6-A017-CF2CFF8B54B9@hserus.net>

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 <suresh at hserus.net> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/0d348ab5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue 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; <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 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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 " <http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1987/20120387> 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" <gurstein at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130312/2e4f009d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  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 <gurstein at gmail.com> 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 interfe