From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 31 18:15:40 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 00:15:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net>

Message-ID: <20130601001540.0de3e3ae@quill.bollow.ch> Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > So we can craft a letter for IGC endorsement. Will a simple letter that references https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg and supports and endorses it suffice? Or does someone wish a craft a more in-depth letter? Who should the letter be addressed to? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri May 31 20:32:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:02:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130601001540.0de3e3ae@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net>

<20130601001540.0de3e3ae@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: A simple letter is something we can all get consensus on, and time is of the essence here. Just send it to the eff and post it on the IGC website I would say? --srs (iPad) On 01-Jun-2013, at 3:45, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > >> So we can craft a letter for IGC endorsement. > > Will a simple letter that references > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > and supports and endorses it suffice? > > Or does someone wish a craft a more in-depth letter? > > Who should the letter be addressed to? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Fri May 31 20:34:37 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:34:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net>

<20130601001540.0de3e3ae@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A9419D.3060809@eff.org> Danny O'brien (cc here) is leading this work. Agreed timing is of essence here. Many thanks all, Katitza On 5/31/13 8:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A simple letter is something we can all get consensus on, and time is of the essence here. > > Just send it to the eff and post it on the IGC website I would say? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Jun-2013, at 3:45, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >>> So we can craft a letter for IGC endorsement. >> Will a simple letter that references >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >> and supports and endorses it suffice? >> >> Or does someone wish a craft a more in-depth letter? >> >> Who should the letter be addressed to? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri May 31 20:47:32 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:47:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net>

<20130601001540.0de3e3ae@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A944A4.9090005@catherine-roy.net> Hi, I am not familiar with how this group normally does this kind of thing so forgive me if this question is not appropriate but : does the CSIGC do press releases ? If so, I would recommend that in lieu of a letter, which supposes signatories (sp?) while a press release can have the same content but need only cite a source. Best, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 31/05/2013 8:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A simple letter is something we can all get consensus on, and time is of the essence here. > > Just send it to the eff and post it on the IGC website I would say? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Jun-2013, at 3:45, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >>> So we can craft a letter for IGC endorsement. >> Will a simple letter that references >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >> and supports and endorses it suffice? >> >> Or does someone wish a craft a more in-depth letter? >> >> Who should the letter be addressed to? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri May 31 23:54:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:54:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry>

<0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> Message-ID: <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been demonstrated. Avri - Excellent observation. Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes (including multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite before any possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In particular, one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the rails" can (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external mechanisms such as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination role on behalf of the global Internet community. A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only germane when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any meaningful response. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped organizations may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed May 1 12:49:58 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Error messages on IGF site Message-ID: <1367426998.26281.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi, Has anyone else received "You don't have permission to access /cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_edit_answer.php on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."? Just asking N Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 1 13:38:48 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:38:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Global Climate Agency proposal..pdf Dear All, Investors in Internet projects, like any kind of investor, want to make sure they will get a good return on their investment. Lets take a look at this attachment and reconsider our statement. Sea Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) > that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social > networking websites. **** > > OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic > nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of network > neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public goods" > character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get any > traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you want to make > a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality statement, at least > people will know what you are talking about.**** > > Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a > gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. For > example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I > can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent > app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that > you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although > becoming dated now gives many other examples.**** > > Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform operator > having the authority to internalize the externalities of the internet by > making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded and which > cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators argue > that they should have editorial discretion; some consumer groups actually _ > *want*_ platform operators to make those decisions; many economists and > regulators feel that competition among platform operators is enough to keep > abuses in check. There are various examples of where public pressure has > ended some arbitrary incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to > take either of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little > to do with the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what > we contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."**** > > An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean what, > exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that there was > no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, including malware, > phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no one would have any > right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers complain about it? But > if there is selection, then who decides what is selected and under what > criteria? The government? Think that'll be better? Which government? **** > > In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is not > clear. This is still a meaningless statement. **** > > Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 > years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, mobile > walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined you to a > restricted set of special services they had deals with. The advent of the > iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile internet is far more > open now than it was then. Where is the evidence of a "growing trend?"**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 1 18:05:54 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 23:05:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Emailing: Global Climate Agency proposal..pdf Message-ID: FYI. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 1 18:06:17 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 23:06:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Emailing: Global Climate Agency proposal..pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 21:06:30 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 03:06:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final Two WTO Director Candidates Highlight Technology And IP Message-ID: from Intellectual Property WatchThe selection process for the next director general of the World Trade Organization is down to two candidates, both from Latin America. Intellectual Property Watch asked them to comment on why they would be the best leader for those interested in technology and intellectual property rights. The remaining candidates are *Herminio Blanco *of *Mexico *and *Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo* of *Brazil*. Blanco is coming from the private sector, and is the former trade minister and trade negotiator for Mexico. Carvalho de Azevêdo is Brazil’s ambassador to the WTO as well as to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The backgrounds of all candidates can be found on the WTO website *here *. An analysis of the positions of candidates was provided by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), *here *. [*more *] Au revoir Pascal Lamy Cheers, Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 1 22:49:54 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe (Google Drive)) Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 02:49:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Global Climate Agency proposal..pdf (governance@lists.igcaucus.org) Message-ID: <001a11c250360f071704dbb34ae9@google.com> I've shared an item with you: Global Climate Agency proposal..pdf https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BypZottWHzSWV01pa3ZyV3hQUjA/edit?usp=sharing&invite=COP7zdQJ It's not an attachment -- it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 1 22:53:41 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 03:53:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Global Climate Agency Message-ID: Dear All, Sorry for the mix-up. Find the link to the document. http://international.cgdev.org/search/Wanted%3A%20A%20Climate%20Agency%20for%20a%20Bottom-Up%20World%E2%80%94A%20Proposal%20for%20a%20New%20Arm%20of%20the%20World%20Bank Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yjpark21 at gmail.com Thu May 2 01:26:38 2013 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (Youn Jung Park) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:26:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: Global Climate Agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, The secretariat of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), new global climate agency, will be located in Songo, Korea, where the 4th Asia Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF) will be held this year. Cheers, YJ On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Dear All, > > Sorry for the mix-up. > Find the link to the document. > http://international.cgdev.org/search/Wanted%3A%20A%20Climate%20Agency%20for%20a%20Bottom-Up%20World%E2%80%94A%20Proposal%20for%20a%20New%20Arm%20of%20the%20World%20Bank > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 2 06:15:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:15:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal Message-ID: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all, as the term of office of the current Appeals Team ends in about two months, it is time to initiate the Nominating Committee (NomCom) process for renewing the Appeals Team. Details of this process are available on the IGC Website at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process . We need at least 25 volunteers who are willing to participate in the task of selecting the new Appeals Team. Five of these will be randomly chosen as the voting members of the Nominating Committee. Therefore, please consider making yourself available for the relatively small but nevertheless important task of participating the selection of the new Appeals Team. If you're willing to help out, please volunteer by letting us know, preferably by email to coordinators at igcaucus.org , by Friday May 16, 2013. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 2 12:05:37 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:05:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [JoCI] New Special Issue: Community Informatics and Co-Creation of Innovation In-Reply-To: <02f301ce474d$63e7c2b0$2bb74810$@gmail.com> References: <20130502153552.AE192101EBA@php5.vcn.bc.ca> <02eb01ce474c$7caa5f70$75ff1e50$@gmail.com> <02f301ce474d$63e7c2b0$2bb74810$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <030101ce474e$eaedfe90$c0c9fbb0$@gmail.com> Since one of the dominant rationales and underlying themes concerning the current discussions/structures of global Internet Governance is concerned with issues of "Innovation" this special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics is perhaps of particular interest from several perspectives. The special issue presents an alternative/expanded view of the meaning and nature of innovation, where those who are generally seen as the object of innovation in fact, become the subject of innovation (innovators) and where innovation is seen as a bottom up rather than top down process. It does I think, further suggest the need/opportunity for an expanded understanding of the nature and significance of innovation and including who could/should be understood as "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder processes where innovations including or especially technical (informatics) applications are framed and undertaken. Finally, the special issue also includes a number of alternative approaches and conceptions of "innovation" and suggests that just as with multi-stakeholderism, the conventional approach to the determination/definition of "innovation" would merit significant scrutiny and extension to include those at the grassroots often overlooked in such processes and analyses. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:55 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org Subject: RE: [JoCI] New Special Issue: Community Informatics and Co-Creation of Innovation The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue at http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest. Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics, Vancouver CANADA Phone 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com The Journal of Community Informatics Vol 9, No 3 (2013): Special Issue: CI and the Co-Creation of Innovation Table of Contents http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/47 Editorial Introduction HTML Susana Finquelievich, Mariana Salgado Community Innovation and Community Informatics HTML Michael Gurstein Articles The Emergence and Development of a Regional Living Lab: The Case of San Luis, Argentina HTML Susana Finquelievich The ecology of linking technologies: toward a non-instrumental look at new technological repertoires HTML Rocío Gómez Facilitating community innovation: The Outils-Réseaux Way HTML Lorna Heaton, Florence Millerand, Serge Proulx Are the Users Driving, and How Open is Open? Experiences from Living Lab and User Driven Innovation projects HTML Kari-Hans Kommonen, Andrea Botero Communities, Crowds and Focal Sites: Fine-Tuning the Theoretical Grounding of Collaboration Online HTML Azi Lev-On The Emergence of Converging Communities via Twitter HTML Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin, Tim Butcher Collaborative Knowledge Creation in Development Networks: Lessons Learned from a Transnational Programme HTML Fabio Nascimbeni RLABS: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN APPROACH TO COMMUNITY INFORMATICS HTML Marlon Parker, Julia Wills, Gary Brian Wills Museums as Living Labs Challenge, Fad or Opportunity? HTML Mariana Salgado Reviews Digital Habitats – stewarding technology for communities HTML Joanna Saad Sulonen Case Studies Appropriation of ICTs by informal communities in metropolitan cities. The case of the “La Salada” market in the Latin American context HTML Ester Schiavo, Sergio Rodríguez, Paula Vera -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 2 13:31:47 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:31:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] MM blog post on what is really threatening Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5182A303.5050604@gmail.com> On 2013/04/30 10:32 PM, McTim wrote: > Get over the stuff about ‘Googledom’ and ‘Facebookistan.’ It’s a cute > metaphor but there is really no comparison between sovereigns and > these businesses. This is an a priorism, and like Miltons allusions that private is better than public, seems plausible only if one accepts certain premises. From my Third World perspective the worst is when the private sector and the state get together to pursue their interests (as Larry Summers once said, for every dollar given to the World Bank by the US, US corporations generate a reasonable multiple back for themselves - of course we end up stuck with the white elephants and conditioning debt). The relationship between many US multinationals is rather intimate some might say incestuous. From this vantage, the difference is merely one of degree rather than kind. Just think of Bush and the private telcos granted RETROSPECTIVE immunity. Retrospectivity, like torture, is one of those grundnorms of law, so unstated, but pivotal to law... That said, the Leviathan (not in it presumptively bad attenuation) needs to be guarded against. Even more so, State and Corporate alliances. Riaz -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 2 13:43:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:43:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5182A5B9.5020703@gmail.com> I will not nitpick arguments, but MMs position is something Libertarian and/or New Institutionalist (seems not to me like that of Galbraith or Richard Ely or Thorstein Veblen, but I may be wrong). On this basis, the argument put forth by MM are not convincing, aside from my libertarian critique or New Institutional critique, which relates to assuming that contracts signed between two consenting parties is just that, a bilateral arrangement made under conditions of 'freedom' or liberty. The presumption here is that there are no externalities generated by such a contract. There can be many externalities to such arrangements (to pre-empt I am not against the private sector when it delivers the 'goods'). There are external effects, such as the net neutrality position put forward below, i.e. the arrangement generates an externality. In this case it simply happens to relate to Net Neutrality, but externalities can be of many forms, for example as Curran posted the action taken against a website that was found to be legal in Spain but not in the US, justifying take down. Cognisant of the fact that there are positive and negative externalities, and that circumstances are novel, some Darwinian selection is needed (increase fecundity), and so some leeway is needed. However I simply cannot start off from the presumption that bilateral arrangements are liberty or freedom (it is a particular type of freedom with a particular kind of voluntrism, everyone is free to sleep under bridges, as Louis put it) and interference with it is presumptively bad. We can see what this light touch freedom has done to Americans in finance - the conservative system was broken down, innovation in finance occurred because of free contracts in the name of efficiency, consequently the US is back to home ownership levels pre-1995. If this can happen in finance, it can happen in any sector. Therefore, from just one vantage, that of externalities much more will need to be adduced to be convincing on this point. And since it also boils down to law in the end. One cannot understand the law except with the exception - the totality - or Das Ganz. So from this vantage the private only has meaning if we articulate what we mean by public. One without the other is like, one hand clapping... Riaz On 2013/04/29 09:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in > Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to > other social networking websites. > > OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic > nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of > network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public > goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get > any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you > want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality > statement, at least people will know what you are talking about. > > Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a > gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. > For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it > - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a > Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. > I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", > which although becoming dated now gives many other examples. > > Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform > operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the > internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded > and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform > operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some > consumer groups actually _/want/_ platform operators to make those > decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among > platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are > various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary > incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of > those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with > the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we > contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons." > > An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean > what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that > there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, > including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no > one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers > complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is > selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be > better? Which government? > > In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is > not clear. This is still a meaningless statement. > > Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 > years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, > mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined > you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The > advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile > internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence > of a "growing trend?" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri May 3 07:23:01 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD-WG on EC 2nd Meeting (30-31 May 2013) In-Reply-To: <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> Message-ID: <1367580181.19878.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear All, Second meeting of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is being held on 30-31 May 2013 (before the CSTD 16th session in June). So, I would request the IGC members selected in the CSTD working group and Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen (the CIVIL SOCIETY FOCAL POINT) to please keep all of us informed with the contributions and activities of the WG. @Anriette what about your proposed workshop and what other proposals are under discussion which are regarding Internet Governance? In order to comply with the mandated (given by the resolution of the UN GA), what strategy is being developed to engage all of the member states and stakeholders and who are invited and expected to attend 2nd meeting of 30-31 May, while (perhaps) the 1st meeting is still pending due to availability of resources? Thanks, Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Anriette Esterhuysen >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 13:42 >Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update > > >Dear all > >In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for >this working group before I released the names of the candidates. > >By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person >did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19 >names. > >Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on >the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put >into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their >assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in >preselecting the IGC nominees. > >The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted >candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were: > >(in alphabetical order with the region they are based in) > >Avri Doria (N America) >Carlos Afonso (A America) >Don McClean (N America) >Grace Githaiga (Africa) >Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific) >Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific) >Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific) >William Drake (Europe) > >I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from >developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who >had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise >to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of >the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment. > >Best regards > >Anriette > > >On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >> Dear all >> >> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on >> Enhanced Cooperation* >> >> *Background* >> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino >> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society >> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing >> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final >> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala. >> >> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7 >> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces >> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a >> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally >> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society >> that know them and that have worked with them. >> >> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each >> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In >> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of >> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I >> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators. >> >> The composition of the selection group was as follows: >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa >> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia >> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America >> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America >> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe >> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator >> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator >> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and >> convenor of the group. >> >> >> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much >> of the period that we had to do our work. >> >> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from >> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew >> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a >> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create >> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for >> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working >> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance. >> >> *Nominees* >> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short >> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread >> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the >> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20 >> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to >> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them >> first in case they have any objection to this. >> >> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* >> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society >> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed' >> or supported by other individuals or organisations. >> >> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes >> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt >> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a >> requirement in the call for nominations. >> >> *Scoring process* >> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my >> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group. >> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against >> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5. >> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score >> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms. >> >> >> The criteria were as follows: >> >> >> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy >> processes. >> >> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG >> >> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel >> >> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder >> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with >> conflicting interests. >> >> >> *Shortlist* >> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I >> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in >> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to >> regional and gender balance. >> >> >> *Submission to CSTD Chair* >> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up >> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly >> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom >> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted >> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure >> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that >> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible. >> >> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination. >> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the >> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely >> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and >> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not >> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage. >> >> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated >> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, >> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through >> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from >> the broader internet community. >> >> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every >> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful. >> >> >> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They >> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have >> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process >> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil >> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection >> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible. >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> >> >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 3 09:19:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 18:49:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> On Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in > Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to > other social networking websites. > > OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic > nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of > network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public > goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get > any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you > want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality > statement, at least people will know what you are talking about. > Net neutrality (NN) is a sub issue of the larger commons/ public good framing. Well, now that you tell me that we should make a NN statement so that people at least know what we are taking about, I cant but take you to a few months back when we tried to make an NN statement; as a workshop proposal to the IGF. Then some IGC-ians, including some of those who now also oppose a common/ public goods statement, opposed the NN statement using the same argument, that NN is a term without a clear enough meaning !? Never mind that a few countries have NN legislations. Consequently, IGC could not use the term NN in its workshop proposal. Now, that tells us two things. One, *beyond a point*, which concept is clear and meaningful and which not is a specific political preference. (For instance, many of those who find NN and Internet's commons/ public goods character as unclear or meaningless formulations never hesitate to use multistakeholder-ism or MSism in their statements. Now I know for sure that many times more people - at least outside the IGC - are clearer about what NN or commons/ public goods character of the Internet means than they are about what does MSism really mean.) Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly unable to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy implications, or touches positive rights . It would remain confined to procedural issues, mainly promoting MSism, which is a code word for removing governments from wherever they can conceivably be removed from. (This connects to larger anti-political trends which I wont go into here.) At the most, it can support a statement on freedom of expression, which, in absence of articulation of at least the connected communication rights framework, look suspiciously close to US's hegemonic 'internet freedom' agenda. This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy of IGC as a premier global civil society group. If people have to go elsewhere to talk about and articulate political economy issues with respect to the global Internet and its governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there seems to be no elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to be filled. parminder > Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a > gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. > For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it > - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a > Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. > I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", > which although becoming dated now gives many other examples. > > Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform > operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the > internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded > and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform > operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some > consumer groups actually _/want/_ platform operators to make those > decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among > platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are > various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary > incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of > those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with > the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we > contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons." > > An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean > what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that > there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, > including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no > one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers > complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is > selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be > better? Which government? > > In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is > not clear. This is still a meaningless statement. > > Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 > years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, > mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined > you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The > advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile > internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence > of a "growing trend?" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 3 01:46:10 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:46:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [JoCI] New Special Issue: Community Informatics and Co-Creation of Innovation In-Reply-To: <030101ce474e$eaedfe90$c0c9fbb0$@gmail.com> References: <20130502153552.AE192101EBA@php5.vcn.bc.ca> <02eb01ce474c$7caa5f70$75ff1e50$@gmail.com> <02f301ce474d$63e7c2b0$2bb74810$@gmail.com> <030101ce474e$eaedfe90$c0c9fbb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51834F22.7000503@gmail.com> Michael I am sure you know, butthe work of Yochai Benkler on this is seminal! First worldish, but a real universalist, who believes in a concept of freedom that I believe is emancipatory without being paternalistic. Thanks for this! Riaz On 2013/05/02 07:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Since one of the dominant rationales and underlying themes concerning > the current discussions/structures of global Internet Governance is > concerned with issues of "Innovation" this special issue of the > Journal of Community Informatics is perhaps of particular interest > from several perspectives. > > The special issue presents an alternative/expanded view of the meaning > and nature of innovation, where those who are generally seen as the > object of innovation in fact, become the subject of innovation > (innovators) and where innovation is seen as a bottom up rather than > top down process. > > It does I think, further suggest the need/opportunity for an expanded > understanding of the nature and significance of innovation and > including who could/should be understood as "stakeholders" in the > multi-stakeholder processes where innovations including or especially > technical (informatics) applications are framed and undertaken. > > Finally, the special issue also includes a number of alternative > approaches and conceptions of "innovation" and suggests that just as > with multi-stakeholderism, the conventional approach to the > determination/definition of "innovation" would merit significant > scrutiny and extension to include those at the grassroots often > overlooked in such processes and analyses. > > M > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:55 AM > *To:* air-l at listserv.aoir.org > *Subject:* RE: [JoCI] New Special Issue: Community Informatics and > Co-Creation of Innovation > > The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest > issue at http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej.*//* > > We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our > web site to review articles and items of interest. > > Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein > Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics, Vancouver CANADA > Phone 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com > > _The Journal of Community Informatics_ > > Vol 9, No 3 (2013): Special Issue: CI and the Co-Creation of > Innovation Table of Contents > > http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/47 > > *//* > > *Editorial* > > Introduction > > > > HTML > > Susana Finquelievich, Mariana Salgado > > > > Community Innovation and Community Informatics > > > > > HTML > > Michael Gurstein > > > > *Articles* > > The Emergence and Development of a Regional Living Lab: The Case of > San Luis, Argentina > > > > > HTML > > Susana Finquelievich > > > > The ecology of linking technologies: toward a non-instrumental look at > new technological repertoires > > > > > HTML > > Rocío Gómez > > > > Facilitating community innovation: The Outils-Réseaux Way > > > > > HTML > > Lorna Heaton, Florence Millerand, Serge Proulx > > > > Are the Users Driving, and How Open is Open? Experiences from Living > Lab and User Driven Innovation projects > > > > > HTML > > Kari-Hans Kommonen, Andrea Botero > > > > Communities, Crowds and Focal Sites: Fine-Tuning the Theoretical > Grounding of Collaboration Online > > > > > HTML > > Azi Lev-On > > > > The Emergence of Converging Communities via Twitter > > > > > HTML > > Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin, Tim Butcher > > > > Collaborative Knowledge Creation in Development Networks: Lessons > Learned from a Transnational Programme > > > > > HTML > > Fabio Nascimbeni > > > > RLABS: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN APPROACH TO > COMMUNITY INFORMATICS > > > > > HTML > > Marlon Parker, Julia Wills, Gary Brian Wills > > > > Museums as Living Labs Challenge, Fad or Opportunity? > > > > > HTML > > Mariana Salgado > > > > *Reviews* > > Digital Habitats – stewarding technology for communities > > > > > HTML > > Joanna Saad Sulonen > > > > *Case Studies* > > Appropriation of ICTs by informal communities in metropolitan cities. > The case of the “La Salada” market in the Latin American context > > > > > HTML > > Ester Schiavo, Sergio Rodríguez, Paula Vera > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 3 10:20:59 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:20:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Petition Fights Proposal For Digital Rights Management In Internet Core Message-ID: <5183C7CB.3090606@gmail.com> May 03, 2013. Petition Fights Proposal For Digital Rights Management In Internet Core Just days after the celebration of 20 years of an open WorldWideWeb, more than two dozen advocacy group are circulating a petition to prevent the World Wide Web Consortium from accepting a proposal to allow restrictive new copyright measures on the key technology for accessing the internet. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=28762&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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 3 15:19:06 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 22:19:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] 1,856 to Zero: Secret Spy Court Authorizes 100% of US Government Requests Message-ID: <51840DAA.8070307@gmail.com> [Not even a token denial... for plausibility...] Published on Friday, May 3, 2013 by Common Dreams 1,856 to Zero: Secret Spy Court Authorizes 100% of US Government Requests In court where civilians have no representative, government's "national security" claims win again and again - Lauren McCauley, staff writer A secret federal court last year did not deny a single request to search or electronically spy on people within the United States "for foreign intelligence purposes," according to a Justice Department report this week. (Photo: byungkyupark/ Flickr) The report (pdf) , which was released Tuesday to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), states that during 2012, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC") approved every single one of the 1,856 applications made by the government for authority to conduct electronic surveillance and/or physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes. This past year saw 5 percent more applications than 2011, though no requests were denied in either. Besides the numbers provided, no other information regarding the court and the court's decisions are made public. As /Wired's/ David Kravets explains: The secret court, which came to life in the wake of the Watergate scandal under the President Richard M. Nixon administration, now gets the bulk of its authority under the FISA Amendments Act, which Congress reauthorized for another five years days before it would have expired last year. The act allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. Previous to its 2012 reauthorization , Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said during a debate on amending the FISA Act, "The public has absolutely no idea what the court is actually saying. What it means is the country is in fact developing a secret body of law so Americans have no way of finding out how their laws and Constitution are being interpreted." Putting the FISC in context, Kevin Gosztola at /FireDogLake/ writes , "America has a court that reviews surveillance requests in secret and makes rulings in secret that are kept secret." He goes on to cite a 2008 Harvard Law Review, which critiqued the unique arrangement of the secret court system, to explain why the court's 100 percent acceptance rate may be unsurprising: One of the most striking elements of the FISA system is the total absence of adversariality. [t]he judge is forced not only to act as an arm of the prosecution in weighing the prosecution's arguments about whether disclosure would or would not compromise national security, but also to act as a defense lawyer in determining whether the information is useful to the defendant." Similarly, in reviewing a FISA application, the FISC must attempt the difficult, if not impossible, task of simultaneously occupying the roles of advocate and neutral arbiter --- all without the authority or ability to investigate facts or the time to conduct legal research. *The judge lacks, a skeptical advocate to vet the government's legal arguments, which is of crucial significance when the government is always able to claim the weight of national security expertise for its position. *It is questionable whether courts can play this role effectively, and, more importantly, whether they should. [emphasis added] The Justice Department report also noted that the government issued 15,229 National Security Letters last year. The letters, issued by the FBI compelling "internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers," were declared unconstitutional in March. However, the decision was stayed 90 days pending the White House's expected appeal. _____________________ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 3 15:20:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:20:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly > unable to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy > implications, or touches positive rights [..] > This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy > of IGC as a premier global civil society group. It seems to be the case that the overall body of people who choose to engage in Internet governance under a "civil society" banner is very far from having consensus in this topic area. In this situation, it would undermine the legitimacy of IGC's claim of being representative of the broad spectrum of civil society in Internet governance to articulate a substantive advocacy view that does not actually represent at least a rough consensus. (It is very good of course that we have procedural rules that are designed for preventing that from happening.) > If people have to go elsewhere to talk about and articulate political > economy issues with respect to the global Internet and its > governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there seems to be no > elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to be filled. Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for developing advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about providing a forum for advocacy. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 3 15:55:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:55:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD-WG on EC 2nd Meeting (30-31 May 2013) In-Reply-To: <1367580181.19878.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <51409F30.6090805@apc.org> <5140A0F6.30909@apc.org> <514824F9.5060407@apc.org> <1367580181.19878.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130503215501.1c3abef8@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Second meeting Actually the first meeting, since the original plan of having a meeting in April was not carried out. > of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is > being held on 30-31 May 2013 (before the CSTD 16th session in June). Does anyone have reliable information on whether those 30-31 May 2013 are definitive now? > So, I would request the IGC members selected in the CSTD working group > and Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen (the CIVIL SOCIETY FOCAL POINT) to please > keep all of us informed with the contributions and activities of the > WG. According to information that I have received a while back from the CSTD secretariat, I will be able to attend as an observer on behalf of the IGC. I intend to do so, and of course report here on the list. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 3 20:30:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 02:30:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Written contributions and inputs on the 2013 IGF preparations Message-ID: <20130504023004.1af811a2@quill.bollow.ch> There's a Call for Contributions on the IGF website which says: Stakeholders are invited to send their written contributions and inputs on the 2013 IGF preparations, to igf at unog.ch . The deadline for sending the contributions is 18 May 2013. Are there some specific questions that civil society MAG members feel that it would be valuable to have input on beyond what is already contained in IGC's statement of earlier this year? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Fri May 3 21:48:48 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 13:48:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> Message-ID: <51846900.5080809@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all I am sharing the invitation to Working Group members (message below) which includes details about the upcoming first meeting of the working group on 30-31 May in Geneva (and apologies for any cross postings). I do not yet know what the format of the meeting will be and only have a very broad outline of the working methods. Probably of most substantive interest is the the proposed discussion on the themes for the groups mandate, on which a questionnairre and survey will be developed as the work rolls out this year and early next - for ease of reference I have posted this list inline below. Note that this list is simply a redaction of previous discussions and has been developed as a summary of points raised in 2012 meetings. I can't vouch for its accuracy. With other deadlines this week (IGF workshops, WSIS, WTPF, etc) civil society participants have not yet been focussing on this upcoming meeting yet, but of course, please do share your comments and ideas in the coming weeks. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat *Shopping list of themes for WGEC* *Overarching issues:* ? Definition and understanding of ?enhanced cooperation? ? Role of enhanced cooperation vis-à-vis the IGF (some countries think IGF is already enhanced cooperation) ? Procedure used to identify specific themes ? Undertaking a mapping exercise of themes to identify what has been achieved / what is outstanding / what are the opportunities ? What are the public policy issues at global level? * * * * *SUBTHEMES* * * *1. Digital divide* * * ? How to deal with asymmetric Internet governance regimes and the emergence of regional and multilateral arrangements for discussion mainly in the North ? The South is preoccupied with access to the Internet, while the North leads privacy, e-commerce, IP and online digital enforcement. This is not a democratic approach and narrows choices for developing countries. There is a need to harmonize initiatives from the North and South to prevent fragmentation (?Digital domination?, ?digital dependency?) *2. Reaching out to developing countries/LDCs* * * ? Improving accessibility and affordability of the Internet (including through the use of Universal Service Funds) ? Adaptability of online services for devices used in developing countries (such as specific versions of mobile phones) ? E-commerce: Compatibility of online payment processors with Africa ? Tackling unemployment in developing countries through adoption of e-solutions *3. IP, copyright and censorship* * * ? Copyright enforcement of Internet content at national level ? Licensing of Internet content by companies ? Accessibility of content ? Internet censorship at national level ? Internet freedom: Freedom of expression, Freedom of information ? Piracy ? Freedom of accessing information (blocking content for countries due to political reasons) ? Fostering innovation on the Internet *4. Applications, content and literacy* * * ? Promoting content and linguistic diversity ? What Internet applications can be supported and prioritized as part of enhanced cooperation (e-health, e-education) ? E-governance, e-commerce, infotainment, resource mapping and meteorological and other essential services ? Capacity building for Internet literacy *5. R&D and technical/engineering cooperation* * * ? Naming / global domain name system / Top level domains (arabic .ar domain name) ? Addressing / IPv6 adoption ? Research and development (for example Domain Name System Security Extensions - DNSSEC) *6. Internet governance* * * ? Internet governance and institutionalization (including the question of how to institutionalize/formalize multi-stakeholder governance and decision-making) ? Definition of equal footing in multi-stakeholder collaboration ? Roles and responsibilities - for example, standard setting and legislation vs. day-to-day technical administration ? Privatization of regulation: Open public Internet is narrowing down. No opportunity to opt out of or scrutinize Internet regulation that was envisioned and developed by the private sector ? Politicization of Internet governance and erosion of multi-stakeholderism (lack of non-governmental participation). ? Transparency and accountability in governance (for example, ICANN and the role of GAC) ? Reducing the cost of governance and improving transparency/reducing corruption with the help of the Internet (e-government) ? Oversight/governance of the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet ? Independent reviews of different aspects of the Internet (accountability, transparency, stability?) ? Hard law vs. soft law for regulation ? How to continuously adapt Internet governance and enhanced cooperation institutions to a rapidly-changing Internet? ? The sovereign right of states in defining public policy on the Internet ? Multilateral, stable funding of IGF and WGEC *7. Security* * * ? Management and protection of Internet resources and infrastructure / measuring infrastructure performance ? Security and Safety / Cybercrime / Rule of law on the Internet ? Protecting children ? Privacy ? International ownership of data (cloud) ? Access to troubleshooting - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:12:57 +0200 From: Peter Major To: [snip] Dear Friends, I hope that you have received my invitation letter to the first meeting of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) to be held the 30 May in the afternoon and the 31 May the whole day in the Conference Centre of Varembé (CCV) in Geneva (http://www.cicg.ch/en/the-ccv/ ). The WGEC, mandated by the resolution of the UN GA, should "examine the mandate of WSIS regarding Enhanced Cooperation, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". To comply with this resolution I suggest that during our first meeting we carefully determine the relevant topics on Enhanced Cooperation with the view to create a questionnaire to be sent out to all Member States and all other stakeholder. As you know the Chair of the 15th Session of the CSTD conducted and Open Consultation on the 18 May 2012. You may find useful to read the attached transcripts of this Consultation in preparation for our meeting. Copies of presentations and contributions are available at http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=61. Summary report of the Open Consultation is available at http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ecn162012crp2_en.pdf. Links to the webcasts are available at http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/#friday. I also attach for your consideration a document prepared by the Secretariat based on the transcripts. The document lists the topics mentioned during the Open Consultation on the 18 May 2012. I would like to have your suggestions, comments and observations focusing on our mandate. I need your support to efficiently manage our work. I would like to ask member states having more than one person on their delegation to designate one person to express views on behalf of the respective delegation. I am confident that each delegation will contribute to the successful completion of our task. Please, do not hesitate to contact me in case you have questions, remarks or suggestions. I look forward meeting you in Geneva. Best regards Peter Major Chair, CSTD WGEC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhGkAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrG8IALFSssyqQoamKUUl7A0byvkO MFgNwTHIAvpdyKkxAASWQydp7HgQvc3m09LREsvzd58wHfE6/eILLQC8Zfe3uXPO vSp0MIHNVNwXNwvxERaTy26LfbZKzueHVo6eFhd6wfRHZI5rIW8YOiN8VGwp83g6 NiGKu9P5xcn1la6GBv5C6WmkzfA58bkK5UIsLk6XdnfmqiQ/LQ5+3kdHTMlcYCL3 rcBw4ewE/KAYOLLCR63gveA7FKZ0LuJIhLQxzfLlorayhoipI5uchcsQAWylH2iW kG8Z2t6H80SNtMSDdPyS8d6rU5H8IdpkPQ0fF/EjCEDqO1qhp9Nmv8Ey3ZiqqLk= =xnJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 3 22:44:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 19:44:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51846900.5080809@apc.org> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> Message-ID: <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com> Hi, Joy, thanks for sending this to the caucus. For myself, once I understand what all we are up to in the WG, I plan to communicate with the IGC and others doing periodic reporting in and request for feedback. At this point I am just waiting until it gets underway. Other than the fact that there is a first meeting 30-31 May, there isn't much I know. For example I am still hoping for an open meeting, at least to the extent of streaming audio. But I do not know what the plans are, having heard no formal plans on that sort of thing. I have heard it rumored that the first meeting may be closed until such time as it decides to be open (ala MAG model?), but I don't really have any definitive info. I have sent in a question. Now back to planning for WTPF, WSIS, IGF and workshops. joy wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Hi all >I am sharing the invitation to Working Group members (message below) >which includes details about the upcoming first meeting of the working >group on 30-31 May in Geneva (and apologies for any cross postings). I >do not yet know what the format of the meeting will be and only have a >very broad outline of the working methods. > >Probably of most substantive interest is the the proposed discussion on >the themes for the groups mandate, on which a questionnairre and survey >will be developed as the work rolls out this year and early next - for >ease of reference I have posted this list inline below. Note that this >list is simply a redaction of previous discussions and has been >developed as a summary of points raised in 2012 meetings. I can't vouch >for its accuracy. > >With other deadlines this week (IGF workshops, WSIS, WTPF, etc) civil >society participants have not yet been focussing on this upcoming >meeting yet, but of course, please do share your comments and ideas in >the coming weeks. > >Kind regards > > >Joy Liddicoat > Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 4 01:45:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 11:15:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> On Saturday 04 May 2013 12:50 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly >> unable to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy >> implications, or touches positive rights > [..] > >> This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy >> of IGC as a premier global civil society group. > It seems to be the case that the overall body of people who choose to > engage in Internet governance under a "civil society" banner is very > far from having consensus in this topic area. In this situation, it > would undermine the legitimacy of IGC's claim of being representative > of the broad spectrum of civil society in Internet governance to > articulate a substantive advocacy view that does not actually represent > at least a rough consensus. Norbert, I am pointing to a dis-balance - a serious dis-balance against issues of social and economic justice in the manner the IGC is able to output positions. Claim of lack of consensus is a legitimate factor in dealing with specific issues, but when it becomes structural, resulting in systematic and permanent blocking of certain kinds of issues - which may be more pertinent to certain classes of people and generally to certain geographies, the phenomenon becomes open to being questioned. I point to this larger structural feature. I am not seeking that any particular position be articulated and adopted by the caucus. Today, not only the IGC, but several other platforms and groups are available to articulate and push views around FoE, which is very good and useful. There is a connected strong bulwark against any governmental claim over the internet, including the legitimate ones which are required to develop and enforce a large range of very much needed pulbic policies and laws (net neutrality being just one of them). On the other hand, there seems to be almost no platform to articulate and advocate issues of social and economic justice. Is it anyone's case here that the Internet and its governance do not throw up a host of very serious issues of this kind. How do these issues get dealt? Does it not indicate a serious political economy dis-balance whereby the claimed premier civil society group systematically serves issues that seem dear to certain classes and general geographies and not other kinds of issues that are specifically important, and even urgent, to other classes and geographies. Claiming absence of consensus does not cover up this deep structural problem, although it may be a good, and even appropriate, response for a co-co to give in this particular case, > Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the > resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. > > If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for developing > advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus > or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would > have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any > reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best > possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about > providing a forum for advocacy. It is fine if this is the interpretation of what IGC is, not much of an advocacy group but a kind of an open platform or forum for civil society groups. And I am increasingly inclined or maybe resigned to this perspective. But that still begs an organised constituency and group at the global level that can systematically deal with Internet governance issues pertaining to social and economic justice. This is the gap that I spoke about in my previous email. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 4 08:03:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 20:03:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bo llow.ch> Message-ID: <73E79791-65F9-4CA0-A15C-E48E7FF63EA4@ciroap.org> On 4 May, 2013, at 3:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> If people have to go elsewhere to talk about and articulate political >> economy issues with respect to the global Internet and its >> governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there seems to be no >> elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to be filled. > > Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the > resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. > > If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for developing > advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus > or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would > have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any > reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best > possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about > providing a forum for advocacy. Best Bits uses that exact model. We endeavour to produce a consensus, but at the end of the day anyone can opt out because the statements are not from Best Bits as a collective, they are from the named signatories who attended a Best Bits meeting (in person or remotely). So that's one of several reasons why I didn't think Best Bits was duplicating the IGC. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 4 08:52:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 18:22:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <73E79791-65F9-4CA0-A15C-E48E7FF63EA4@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bo llow.ch> <73E79791-65F9-4CA0-A15C-E48E7FF63EA4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <518504A1.7020208@itforchange.net> On Saturday 04 May 2013 05:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 4 May, 2013, at 3:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> If people have to go elsewhere to talk about and articulate political >>> economy issues with respect to the global Internet and its >>> governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there seems to be no >>> elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to be filled. >> Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the >> resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. >> >> If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for developing >> advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus >> or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would >> have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any >> reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best >> possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about >> providing a forum for advocacy. > Best Bits uses that exact model. We endeavour to produce a consensus, but at the end of the day anyone can opt out because the statements are not from Best Bits as a collective, they are from the named signatories who attended a Best Bits meeting (in person or remotely). So that's one of several reasons why I didn't think Best Bits was duplicating the IGC. Whereby you are confirming that IGC''s primary focus is not, and has not been, what Norbert seems to suggest its primary focus now can be, or possibly the best interpretation of its mission statement always meant it to be :) . I think IGC is into a really deep existentialist dilemma . parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat May 4 10:04:30 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 07:04:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com> Message-ID: Update: It does seen, if i understand correctly, that at last the first meeting will be closed to all but members. I think this an unfortunate mistake, but I do not know how to change that just yet. So my first cause in this WGEC is to argue for opening all meetings, including this first one, at least to the same extent that the organizations with which enhanced cooperation is desired open their meetings. At the very least I will be arguing that all meetings, including the first, have live streaming and that all email lists have open archives. I hope others will join me in this attempt, but I am not assuming that just because we come from civil society or even may have been put forward by the same groups, that we will have any notion of a common front. I understand that we come from diverse stands of civil society and that we advocate differently for a variety of goals. Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >Joy, thanks for sending this to the caucus. > >For myself, once I understand what all we are up to in the WG, I plan >to communicate with the IGC and others doing periodic reporting in and >request for feedback. At this point I am just waiting until it gets >underway. Other than the fact that there is a first meeting 30-31 May, >there isn't much I know. > >For example I am still hoping for an open meeting, at least to the >extent of streaming audio. But I do not know what the plans are, having >heard no formal plans on that sort of thing. I have heard it rumored >that the first meeting may be closed until such time as it decides to >be open (ala MAG model?), but I don't really have any definitive info. >I have sent in a question. > >Now back to planning for WTPF, WSIS, IGF and workshops. > >joy wrote: > >> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>Hi all >>I am sharing the invitation to Working Group members (message below) >>which includes details about the upcoming first meeting of the working >>group on 30-31 May in Geneva (and apologies for any cross postings). I >>do not yet know what the format of the meeting will be and only have a >>very broad outline of the working methods. >> >>Probably of most substantive interest is the the proposed discussion >on >>the themes for the groups mandate, on which a questionnairre and >survey >>will be developed as the work rolls out this year and early next - for >>ease of reference I have posted this list inline below. Note that this >>list is simply a redaction of previous discussions and has been >>developed as a summary of points raised in 2012 meetings. I can't >vouch >>for its accuracy. >> >>With other deadlines this week (IGF workshops, WSIS, WTPF, etc) civil >>society participants have not yet been focussing on this upcoming >>meeting yet, but of course, please do share your comments and ideas in >>the coming weeks. >> >>Kind regards >> >> >>Joy Liddicoat >> >Avri Doria ~~~ avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat May 4 10:44:10 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 07:44:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com> Hi, I support the view Norbet puts forward. And I believe the IGC can achieve rough consensus on advocacy for many civil society positions and proposals. And I see no harm in putting out signatory based statements when rough consensus can't be found. Personally I could even line up behind advocacy on some, maybe even many, issues on social and economic justice. But they have been forward in such a caustic way of late there is no way I, personally, will align with those proposals, or encourage their proponents. I see Bestbits as a way to bring together people who focus their efforts in a variety of groups. As such it makes sense as a signatory group. IGC is a group of individuals not an aggregator of civil society groups as Bestbits is attempting to be; and I believe that if we ever leave the era of bullying we will once again be able to find rough consensus in IGC on many progressive topics. parminder wrote: > > > >> Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the >> resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. >> >> If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for >developing >> advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus >> or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would >> have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any >> reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best >> possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about >> providing a forum for advocacy. >It is fine if this is the interpretation of what IGC is, not much of an > >advocacy group but a kind of an open platform or forum for civil >society >groups. And I am increasingly inclined or maybe resigned to this >perspective. But that still begs an organised constituency and group at > >the global level that can systematically deal with Internet governance >issues pertaining to social and economic justice. This is the gap that >I >spoke about in my previous email. > >parminder > > > >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> ~~~ avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sat May 4 10:53:03 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 16:53:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com> Message-ID: I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the other stakeholder groups will support it too. On 4 May 2013 16:04, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Update: > > It does seen, if i understand correctly, that at last the first meeting > will be closed to all but members. I think this an unfortunate mistake, but > I do not know how to change that just yet. > > So my first cause in this WGEC is to argue for opening all meetings, > including this first one, at least to the same extent that the > organizations with which enhanced cooperation is desired open their > meetings. At the very least I will be arguing that all meetings, including > the first, have live streaming and that all email lists have open archives. > > I hope others will join me in this attempt, but I am not assuming that > just because we come from civil society or even may have been put forward > by the same groups, that we will have any notion of a common front. I > understand that we come from diverse stands of civil society and that we > advocate differently for a variety of goals. > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Joy, thanks for sending this to the caucus. >> >> For myself, once I understand what all we are up to in the WG, I plan to communicate with the IGC and others doing periodic reporting in and request for feedback. At this point I am just waiting until it gets underway. Other than the fact that there is a first meeting 30-31 May, there isn't much I know. >> >> For example I am still hoping for an open meeting, at least to the extent of streaming audio. But I do not know what the plans are, having heard no formal plans on that sort of thing. I have heard it rumored that the first meeting may be closed until such time as it decides to be open (ala MAG model?), but I don't really have any definitive info. I have sent in a question. >> >> Now back to planning for WTPF, WSIS, IGF and workshops. >> >> joy wrote: >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Hi all >>> I am sharing the invitation to Working Group members (message below) >>> which includes details about the upcoming first meeting of the working >>> group on 30-31 May in Geneva (and apologies for any cross postings). I >>> do not yet know what the format of the meeting will be and only have a >>> very broad outline of the working methods. >>> >>> Probably of most substantive interest is the the proposed discussion on >>> the themes for the groups mandate, on which a questionnairre and survey >>> will be developed as the work rolls out this year and early next - for >>> ease of reference I have posted this list inline below. Note that this >>> list is simply a redaction of previous discussions and has been >>> developed as a summary of points raised in 2012 meetings. I can't >>> vouch >>> for its accuracy. >>> >>> With other deadlines this week (IGF workshops, WSIS, WTPF, etc) civil >>> society participants have not yet been focussing on this upcoming >>> meeting yet, but of course, please do share your comments and ideas in >>> the coming weeks. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> >>> Joy Liddicoat >> >> >> Avri Doria >> >> > ~~~ > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 4 12:39:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 12:39:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

Message-ID: On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil > society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the > other stakeholder groups will support it too.! I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain consensus. This is one example of social justice that we could get behind. It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on as well. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat May 4 13:46:48 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 17:46:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi, Avri, what do you mean by "they have been forward in such a caustic way" - by "they" are you referring to the issues on social and economic justice or something else, and what do you mean by the whole sentence? Thanks mawaki On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I support the view Norbet puts forward. And I believe the IGC can achieve > rough consensus on advocacy for many civil society positions and proposals. > And I see no harm in putting out signatory based statements when rough > consensus can't be found. > > Personally I could even line up behind advocacy on some, maybe even many, > issues on social and economic justice. But they have been forward in such a > caustic way of late there is no way I, personally, will align with those > proposals, or encourage their proponents. > > I see Bestbits as a way to bring together people who focus their efforts > in a variety of groups. As such it makes sense as a signatory group. IGC > is a group of individuals not an aggregator of civil society groups as > Bestbits is attempting to be; and I believe that if we ever leave the era > of bullying we will once again be able to find rough consensus in IGC on > many progressive topics. > > parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the > >> resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus. > >> > >> If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for > >developing > >> advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus > >> or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would > >> have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any > >> reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best > >> possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about > >> providing a forum for advocacy. > >It is fine if this is the interpretation of what IGC is, not much of an > > > >advocacy group but a kind of an open platform or forum for civil > >society > >groups. And I am increasingly inclined or maybe resigned to this > >perspective. But that still begs an organised constituency and group at > > > >the global level that can systematically deal with Internet governance > >issues pertaining to social and economic justice. This is the gap that > >I > >spoke about in my previous email. > > > >parminder > > > > > > > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > > ~~~ > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat May 4 14:09:04 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 11:09:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com> Message-ID: Mawaki Chango wrote: >Hi, > >Avri, what do you mean by "they have been forward in such a caustic >way" - >by "they" are you referring to the issues on social and economic >justice or >something else, and what do you mean by the whole sentence? Thanks > >mawaki > Typo: ...put forward in such a caustic ... ~~~ avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat May 4 14:43:46 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 18:43:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Of the intertwining of thought and the geographies of economy... For whatever it's worth, pre-Socratic Greek thinkers already saw a connection between geography and philosophy, notably across schools in the islands of the North-Eastern Mediterranean sea. With a globalized and further globalizing economy plus several layers of geo-strategic calculus, natural geography has long become less relevant in terms of providing any significant independent variables for shaping our thinking (in other words, in terms of determining the way we think and the outcome of our thinking.) As the other guy said: It's the economy, stupid! So now, it is not the natural geography but the economic geography that matters! And with economic geography (and power) comes political geography, too (in which "region(s)" Israel or New Zealand belong, again?) Well, power is everywhere, even within CS, isn't it? The most intriguing thing for people outside the US is that the people who seem to be most intent and relentless with every possible argument to shoot down the state (or disable the state altogether) are those very people whose state works the most effectively on their behalf particularly on the international stage, that is, on behalf of them citizens either directly or through the promotion of and support to their private corporations. Good for them! But I'd hope things might work better in forging shared interests and agreements if we could start from a mutual and deep understanding as to why such is the case in some parts of the world, particularly the US, and why such is NOT the case elsewhere. Does anyone here think they fully understand why a certain group of countries lean toward certain positions, and others the opposite direction? Might they have some legitimate reasons for that, including self-interest --whatever that means-- or is someone just plain stupid? If self-interest, is someone's self-interest more legitimate than others' and how does one determine that? Does anyone even seek to understand why the split? Why citizenry in some countries do believe they need the state, and that the state might even be their best chance to representation on the international stage? Does anyone really care to bridge the gap? Or are we just extending the war by all means but lethal weapons? After all, that is historically a huge achievement: civilization or the replacement of physical violence by language. Isn't that enough? We hear about the rule of the victor after a war (I believe there's even a standard phrase for that, which I'm forgetting.) But what happens before the war, how does power play out in time of peace? Ideally, the most powerful must be right! Yeah, things would work more smoothly if we all can just admit the self-evidence of the superiority of the self-interest of the most powerful (since no one can really demonstrate whose self-interest is more legitimate than others'). And if the least powerful want to prevent or deny them the right to be right, tension becomes high, very high, and transaction costs follow the same direction especially for those least powerful. However, I won't go as far as to say the most powerful will wage a war just to be right, just so that victorious they can rule the day after the war. But who am I to know how the most powerful think about such important things as war and peace, and all the power play in between? So one thing I seem to agree with MM on is that economy is of prime importance and determines everything else -- proof is that, along with its geographical variability, it is so deep-seated in our brains that it determines our way of thinking. Right? Truth be told, I only doubt about the might of the economy and economic motivations when I am visiting my mom's village... anyway, I've always suspected those people to be out of time, so don't mind them, an economic anomaly history shall rid us of. mawaki On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > ** ** > > ** ** > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) > that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social > networking websites. **** > > OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic > nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of network > neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public goods" > character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get any > traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you want to make > a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality statement, at least > people will know what you are talking about. > > > Net neutrality (NN) is a sub issue of the larger commons/ public good > framing. Well, now that you tell me that we should make a NN statement so > that people at least know what we are taking about, I cant but take you to > a few months back when we tried to make an NN statement; as a workshop > proposal to the IGF. Then some IGC-ians, including some of those who now > also oppose a common/ public goods statement, opposed the NN statement > using the same argument, that NN is a term without a clear enough meaning > !? Never mind that a few countries have NN legislations. Consequently, IGC > could not use the term NN in its workshop proposal. > > Now, that tells us two things. > > One, *beyond a point*, which concept is clear and meaningful and which not > is a specific political preference. (For instance, many of those who find > NN and Internet's commons/ public goods character as unclear or meaningless > formulations never hesitate to use multistakeholder-ism or MSism in their > statements. Now I know for sure that many times more people - at least > outside the IGC - are clearer about what NN or commons/ public goods > character of the Internet means than they are about what does MSism really > mean.) > > Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly unable to > articulate any advocacy view which has political economy implications, or > touches positive rights . It would remain confined to procedural issues, > mainly promoting MSism, which is a code word for removing governments from > wherever they can conceivably be removed from. (This connects to larger > anti-political trends which I wont go into here.) At the most, it can > support a statement on freedom of expression, which, in absence of > articulation of at least the connected communication rights framework, > look suspiciously close to US's hegemonic 'internet freedom' agenda. > > This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy of > IGC as a premier global civil society group. If people have to go elsewhere > to talk about and articulate political economy issues with respect to the > global Internet and its governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there > seems to be no elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to > be filled. > > parminder > > > **** > > Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a > gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. For > example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I > can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent > app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that > you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although > becoming dated now gives many other examples.**** > > Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform operator > having the authority to internalize the externalities of the internet by > making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded and which > cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators argue > that they should have editorial discretion; some consumer groups actually _ > *want*_ platform operators to make those decisions; many economists and > regulators feel that competition among platform operators is enough to keep > abuses in check. There are various examples of where public pressure has > ended some arbitrary incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to > take either of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little > to do with the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what > we contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."**** > > An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean what, > exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that there was > no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, including malware, > phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no one would have any > right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers complain about it? But > if there is selection, then who decides what is selected and under what > criteria? The government? Think that'll be better? Which government? **** > > In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is not > clear. This is still a meaningless statement. **** > > Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 > years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, mobile > walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined you to a > restricted set of special services they had deals with. The advent of the > iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile internet is far more > open now than it was then. Where is the evidence of a "growing trend?"**** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 4 23:59:09 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 09:29:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5185D90D.9000707@itforchange.net> On Saturday 04 May 2013 07:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Update: > > It does seen, if i understand correctly, that at last the first > meeting will be closed to all but members. I think this an unfortunate > mistake, but I do not know how to change that just yet. > > So my first cause in this WGEC is to argue for opening all meetings, > including this first one, at least to the same extent that the > organizations with which enhanced cooperation is desired open their > meetings. At the very least I will be arguing that all meetings, > including the first, have live streaming and that all email lists have > open archives. > > I hope others will join me in this attempt, but I am not assuming that > just because we come from civil society or even may have been put > forward by the same groups, that we will have any notion of a common > front. I understand that we come from diverse stands of civil society > and that we advocate differently for a variety of goals. Sunshine rules, or maximum openness, should apply to all public processes by default, unless a compelling case can be made to the contrary. I agree WG (working group on enhanced cooperation) meeting should be open. If we want to write something on it to the chair we can... Need for openness and sunshine rules also extend to other public processes associated with the WG, for instance of selecting its members, by all stakeholders. I also demand full openness on that, which has not been forthcoming. Can we also write to the chair seeking that all selection process holders publish the respective process of selection. To remind again, such publishing is required for MAG selections as per the recent report of the WG on improvements to the IGF. I dont see why should it then not be required for stakeholder rep selection process for other UN related groups./ committees. I am not insisting that we make the two demands together in a single representation, We can do it separately. parminder PS: We also need to write to UNDESA and IGF secretariat reminding them that the report of WG on IGF improvements requires that all stakeholder processes recommending reps for the MAG as well as the overall process be published. We havent seen it for the last round of MAG selections which happened after the UN Assembly had adopted the report. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Joy, thanks for sending this to the caucus. > > For myself, once I understand what all we are up to in the WG, I plan to communicate with the IGC and others doing periodic reporting in and request for feedback. At this point I am just waiting until it gets underway. Other than the fact that there is a first meeting 30-31 May, there isn't much I know. > > For example I am still hoping for an open meeting, at least to the extent of streaming audio. But I do not know what the plans are, having heard no formal plans on that sort of thing. I have heard it rumored that the first meeting may be closed until such time as it decides to be open (ala MAG model?), but I don't really have any definitive info. I have sent in a question. > > Now back to planning for WTPF, WSIS, IGF and workshops. > > joy wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all I am > sharing the invitation to Working Group members (message > below) which includes details about the upcoming first meeting > of the working group on 30-31 May in Geneva (and apologies for > any cross postings). I do not yet know what the format of the > meeting will be and only have a very broad outline of the > working methods. Probably of most substantive interest is the > the proposed discussion on the themes for the groups mandate, > on which a questionnairre and survey will be developed as the > work rolls out this year and early next - for ease of > reference I have posted this list inline below. Note that this > list is simply a redaction of previous discussions and has > been developed as a summary of points raised in 2012 meetings. > I can't vouch for its accuracy. With other deadlines this week > (IGF workshops, WSIS, WTPF, etc) civil society participants > have not yet been focussing on this upcoming meeting yet, but > of course, please do share your comments and ideas in the > coming weeks. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat > > > Avri Doria > > > ~~~ > avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 5 00:10:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 09:40:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com>

Message-ID: <5185DBC7.8010206@itforchange.net> Avri You have really not responded to Mawaki's question, but nevertheless.... I invite you to put forward a non caustic approach to framing an IGC position on "promoting the commons and pulbic goods aspect of the Internet". We cannot lose substance for form, can we, or for personalities. parminder On Saturday 04 May 2013 11:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Avri, what do you mean by "they have been forward in such a caustic >> way" - >> by "they" are you referring to the issues on social and economic >> justice or >> something else, and what do you mean by the whole sentence? Thanks >> >> mawaki >> > Typo: ...put forward in such a caustic ... > ~~~ > avri > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 5 00:18:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 09:48:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Malaysia elections and the Internet Message-ID: <5185DDA8.40602@itforchange.net> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/04/uk-malaysia-election-online-idUKBRE94309G20130504 In Malaysia, online election battles take a nasty turn (Reuters) - Ahead of Malaysia's elections on Sunday, independent online media say they are being targeted in Internet attacks which filter content and throttle access to websites, threatening to deprive voters of their main source of independent reporting. Independent online news sites have emerged in recent years to challenge the dominance of mostly government-linked traditional media. The government denies any attempts to hobble access to the Internet in the run-up to a close-fought election. "During the 2008 election we were wiped off the Internet," said Premesh Chandran, CEO of independent online news provider Malaysiakini. "Our concern is that we'll see a repeat of that on May 5. Can we really live without independent media on election night, given that both sides might not accept the result?" Malaysiakini was set up in the late 1990s to test the government's push to lure technology companies to the country by promising not to censor the Internet. Other news websites have followed, including The Malaysian Insider, which set up shop down the street from Malaysiakini in 2008. Such websites have emerged as an important source of news to counter the traditional media, most of which are owned by interests linked to the ruling Barisan Nasional or BN coalition. The BN's dominance of media is one of its crucial advantages as it fends off an increasingly potent opposition that made impressive election gains in 2008. Sunday's election is expected to be the closest yet, though Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is favoured to win. Leading opposition politicians who attract big campaign crowds in cities say they get a much cooler reception in rural areas, where access to the Internet is rarer. Malaysia ranked 145th on a list of 179 countries in this year's World Press Freedom report released by Reporters Without Borders. It was Malaysia's lowest ever ranking. A survey released on Friday by the University of Nottingham's Malaysia campus and Malaysia's Centre for Independent Journalism found that online media gave almost equal coverage to the opposition and government parties, while traditional media focused on the ruling BN coalition and its parties "by a significant margin". POLICE RAIDS TO ONLINE ATTACKS Malaysiakini, the most popular of such websites, has weathered several storms, including police raids, denied access to press conferences, accusations of being linked to foreign agents and requests to take down content, Chandran said. But in recent years the tactics appear to have shifted towards knocking the site offline, primarily through distributed denial of service, or DDOS, attacks, where servers are deluged by thousands of requests at the same time. Harlan Mandel, CEO of New York-based Media Development Investment Fund, which has worked with Malaysiakini for more than a decade and is a minority investor, said in an email interview that Malaysiakini had become a focus for attack after "establishing itself as the go-to site for reliable election reporting for millions of Malaysians" in 2008. "Since then, it has come under repeated cyber attacks, generally coinciding with sensitive political events like local elections and political rallies, said Mandel. Malaysiakini is not alone. Last month a DDOS attack brought down three related London-based radio web portals, according to Clare Rewcastle Brown, their Malaysian-born founder. Jahabar Sadiq, CEO of Kuala Lumpur-based The Malaysian Insider, said his news service had come under heavy DDOS attack shortly after six of his staff were summoned to the regulator, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission or MCMC, a few weeks ago. They were asked, among other questions, for technical details about their service provider. "It can't be a coincidence," he said in an interview. "They were asking questions about our architecture which weren't required." BACKUP U.S. SERVERS At least half a dozen news or political websites have now shifted their servers to U.S.-based CloudFlare, which offers protection against DDOS attacks for a fraction of the cost other companies charge. CloudFlare said that attacks on such sites had increased in the past week, mostly from Malaysia-based computers or IP addresses it had not previously seen involved in attacks. Now, Malaysiakini's Chandran and others say, their attackers appear to have shifted gear again. The Malaysian Insider's mail service, which allows users to email articles to others, was hacked two weeks ago, Sadiq said, triggering it to queue tens of thousands of emails to send to users within a couple of hours. Malaysiakini's Chandran says the most recent wave of disruptions began late last month when users complained the site could only be accessed intermittently. One minute users could access the site, the next they couldn't. They figured out that only those using Internet service providers who channel their traffic through state-controlled Telekom Malaysia Berhad were affected, while those accessing through smaller ISPs who use an international gateway were still able to access the site. "It's a smarter way to do it," said Chandran. "It's a guerrilla style in that it creeps up on you and it's harder to detect." Shortly after complaining informally to the MCMC, Chandran said, the attack stopped. Since then, Malaysiakini discovered that some political sensitive videos it had posted on YouTube could not be viewed if accessed from some local ISPs and some Facebook pages featuring election-related content were also affected. Such tactics appear to be using what is called deep packet inspection, where Internet traffic is monitored and filtered via specific keywords, links or digital signatures, which would require access to the ISP. INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED The MCMC said on Thursday that it was investigating such complaints but that "preliminary investigations indicate that there were no such restrictions by ISPs as alleged by certain quarters". Telekom Malaysia said in a written response to questions from Reuters that it had set up a taskforce and network operating centre to ensure that its network ran smoothly for its customers during the election period. "Malaysia has a free, open and robust online media environment. The government does not censor the internet and welcomes constructive criticism as part of the democratic process," said a government spokesman told Reuters. "We deny any involvement in cyber-attacks. The government does not condone attacks against the media in any form." Indeed, Malaysiakini's Chandran and others are careful not to accuse the government or Telekom Malaysia directly. "We are an Internet-based company, we don't want to pick a fight with a telco, we need them," Chandran said. "Besides we can't tell whether they're doing it on purpose." It's almost impossible to figure out who is behind the attacks and not easy to distinguish between a deliberate assault and the technical issues of handling large and fluctuating waves of traffic. Independent security experts said the available evidence appeared to confirm Malaysiakini's conclusions. Dhillon Andrew Kannabhiran, Malaysian founder and CEO of the Hack In The Box conferences, said that "stuff is being filtered or slowed down or otherwise being messed around with for sure" on Telekom Malaysia's network, but he said that it could have been done without the company's say-so or knowledge. In the meantime, websites are preparing for the worst by mirroring content on other domain names and on Facebook . The Malaysian Insider has also set up a mirror outside the country at themalaysianoutsider.com. Whatever the outcome of Sunday's election, Malaysia's increasingly sophisticated Internet battleground reflects the future of struggles to control and influence of information. The election-related DDOS attacks in Malaysia "follows a trend we've seen elsewhere where DDOS is becoming a part of many elections", said Matthew Prince, co-founder CEO of CloudFlare. Malaysia illustrated how political parties and the powers-that-be are starting to use the Internet, said Mikko Hipponen, chief research officer of Helsinki-based internet security company F-Secure which has large lab in Kuala Lumpur. "They are taking a much more active role and, in some parts of the world, they are not afraid to use the more offensive technologies to get what they want," said Hipponen. "I believe we'll be seeing much more of this." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun May 5 03:16:33 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 08:16:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, Mawaki, good elaboration. Come to think, why is there no Global government? Whose interest was it during the years of slavery? Which has re-surfaced in more systematic approaches. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 4, 2013 7:44 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Of the intertwining of thought and the geographies of economy... > > For whatever it's worth, pre-Socratic Greek thinkers already saw a > connection between geography and philosophy, notably across schools in the > islands of the North-Eastern Mediterranean sea. With a globalized and > further globalizing economy plus several layers of geo-strategic calculus, > natural geography has long become less relevant in terms of providing any > significant independent variables for shaping our thinking (in other words, > in terms of determining the way we think and the outcome of our thinking.) > As the other guy said: It's the economy, stupid! So now, it is not the > natural geography but the economic geography that matters! And with > economic geography (and power) comes political geography, too (in which > "region(s)" Israel or New Zealand belong, again?) Well, power is > everywhere, even within CS, isn't it? > > The most intriguing thing for people outside the US is that the people who > seem to be most intent and relentless with every possible argument to shoot > down the state (or disable the state altogether) are those very people > whose state works the most effectively on their behalf particularly on the > international stage, that is, on behalf of them citizens either directly or > through the promotion of and support to their private corporations. Good > for them! But I'd hope things might work better in forging shared interests > and agreements if we could start from a mutual and deep understanding as to > why such is the case in some parts of the world, particularly the US, and > why such is NOT the case elsewhere. > > Does anyone here think they fully understand why a certain group of > countries lean toward certain positions, and others the opposite direction? > Might they have some legitimate reasons for that, including self-interest > --whatever that means-- or is someone just plain stupid? If self-interest, > is someone's self-interest more legitimate than others' and how does one > determine that? Does anyone even seek to understand why the split? Why > citizenry in some countries do believe they need the state, and that the > state might even be their best chance to representation on the > international stage? Does anyone really care to bridge the gap? Or are we > just extending the war by all means but lethal weapons? After all, that is > historically a huge achievement: civilization or the replacement of > physical violence by language. Isn't that enough? > > We hear about the rule of the victor after a war (I believe there's even a > standard phrase for that, which I'm forgetting.) But what happens before > the war, how does power play out in time of peace? Ideally, the most > powerful must be right! Yeah, things would work more smoothly if we all can > just admit the self-evidence of the superiority of the self-interest of the > most powerful (since no one can really demonstrate whose self-interest is > more legitimate than others'). And if the least powerful want to prevent or > deny them the right to be right, tension becomes high, very high, and > transaction costs follow the same direction especially for those least > powerful. However, I won't go as far as to say the most powerful will wage > a war just to be right, just so that victorious they can rule the day after > the war. But who am I to know how the most powerful think about such > important things as war and peace, and all the power play in between? > > So one thing I seem to agree with MM on is that economy is of prime > importance and determines everything else -- proof is that, along with its > geographical variability, it is so deep-seated in our brains that it > determines our way of thinking. Right? Truth be told, I only doubt about > the might of the economy and economic motivations when I am visiting my > mom's village... anyway, I've always suspected those people to be out of > time, so don't mind them, an economic anomaly history shall rid us of. > > mawaki > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile >> Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) >> that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social >> networking websites. **** >> >> OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic >> nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of network >> neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public goods" >> character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get any >> traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you want to make >> a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality statement, at least >> people will know what you are talking about. >> >> >> Net neutrality (NN) is a sub issue of the larger commons/ public good >> framing. Well, now that you tell me that we should make a NN statement so >> that people at least know what we are taking about, I cant but take you to >> a few months back when we tried to make an NN statement; as a workshop >> proposal to the IGF. Then some IGC-ians, including some of those who now >> also oppose a common/ public goods statement, opposed the NN statement >> using the same argument, that NN is a term without a clear enough meaning >> !? Never mind that a few countries have NN legislations. Consequently, IGC >> could not use the term NN in its workshop proposal. >> >> Now, that tells us two things. >> >> One, *beyond a point*, which concept is clear and meaningful and which >> not is a specific political preference. (For instance, many of those who >> find NN and Internet's commons/ public goods character as unclear or >> meaningless formulations never hesitate to use multistakeholder-ism or >> MSism in their statements. Now I know for sure that many times more people >> - at least outside the IGC - are clearer about what NN or commons/ public >> goods character of the Internet means than they are about what does MSism >> really mean.) >> >> Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly unable >> to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy implications, >> or touches positive rights . It would remain confined to procedural >> issues, mainly promoting MSism, which is a code word for removing >> governments from wherever they can conceivably be removed from. (This >> connects to larger anti-political trends which I wont go into here.) At the >> most, it can support a statement on freedom of expression, which, in >> absence of articulation of at least the connected communication rights >> framework, look suspiciously close to US's hegemonic 'internet freedom' >> agenda. >> >> This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy of >> IGC as a premier global civil society group. If people have to go elsewhere >> to talk about and articulate political economy issues with respect to the >> global Internet and its governance, it is not a good thing. For one, there >> seems to be no elsewhere to go right now. That is a gap which may need to >> be filled. >> >> parminder >> >> >> **** >> >> Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a >> gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. For >> example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I >> can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent >> app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that >> you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although >> becoming dated now gives many other examples.**** >> >> Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform operator >> having the authority to internalize the externalities of the internet by >> making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded and which >> cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators argue >> that they should have editorial discretion; some consumer groups actually _ >> *want*_ platform operators to make those decisions; many economists and >> regulators feel that competition among platform operators is enough to keep >> abuses in check. There are various examples of where public pressure has >> ended some arbitrary incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to >> take either of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little >> to do with the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what >> we contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."*** >> * >> >> An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean what, >> exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that there was >> no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, including malware, >> phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no one would have any >> right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers complain about it? But >> if there is selection, then who decides what is selected and under what >> criteria? The government? Think that'll be better? Which government? **** >> >> In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is not >> clear. This is still a meaningless statement. **** >> >> Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 >> years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, mobile >> walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined you to a >> restricted set of special services they had deals with. The advent of the >> iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile internet is far more >> open now than it was then. Where is the evidence of a "growing trend?"*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun May 5 03:36:40 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 07:36:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <5185DBC7.8010206@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> <4cfc6355-9507-4bd2-b197-b975753cdd9e@email.android.com>

<5185DBC7.8010206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In fact, I literally didn't understand that proposition and that was the only thing that motivated my inquiry. In other words, I must say, I wouldn't have asked the question had it not been for the typo. So with the correction I understand the author thinks those issues have been framed in a certain manner she doesn't find helpful, and that is her opinion. Beyond that (and whatever participants are willing to express) I do not need to know of everyone's politics before I can engage in a conversation they are part of and stake my own opinions, nor am I a whole lot interested in that. Have you all a restful and enjoyable Sunday! mawaki On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > Avri > > You have really not responded to Mawaki's question, but nevertheless.... > > I invite you to put forward a non caustic approach to framing an IGC > position on "promoting the commons and pulbic goods aspect of the Internet". > > We cannot lose substance for form, can we, or for personalities. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 04 May 2013 11:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Hi, > > Avri, what do you mean by "they have been forward in such a caustic > way" - > by "they" are you referring to the issues on social and economic > justice or > something else, and what do you mean by the whole sentence? Thanks > > mawaki > > > Typo: ...put forward in such a caustic ... > ~~~ > avri > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun May 5 04:38:21 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:38:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

Message-ID: Hi On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil >> society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the >> other stakeholder groups will support it too.! > > > I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain consensus. > > This is one example of social justice that we could get behind. > > It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on as well. Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the demand from closure came from and what the rationale was. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 5 06:59:30 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 19:59:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Malaysia elections and the Internet In-Reply-To: <5185DDA8.40602@itforchange.net> References: <5185DDA8.40602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Malaysiakini have been subject to attacks for many years, participated in WSIS from early prepcoms. Adam On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM, parminder wrote: > > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/04/uk-malaysia-election-online-idUKBRE94309G20130504 > > In Malaysia, online election battles take a nasty turn > > (Reuters) - Ahead of Malaysia's elections on Sunday, independent online > media say they are being targeted in Internet attacks which filter content > and throttle access to websites, threatening to deprive voters of their main > source of independent reporting. > > Independent online news sites have emerged in recent years to challenge the > dominance of mostly government-linked traditional media. The government > denies any attempts to hobble access to the Internet in the run-up to a > close-fought election. > > "During the 2008 election we were wiped off the Internet," said Premesh > Chandran, CEO of independent online news provider Malaysiakini. > > "Our concern is that we'll see a repeat of that on May 5. Can we really live > without independent media on election night, given that both sides might not > accept the result?" > > Malaysiakini was set up in the late 1990s to test the government's push to > lure technology companies to the country by promising not to censor the > Internet. Other news websites have followed, including The Malaysian > Insider, which set up shop down the street from Malaysiakini in 2008. > > Such websites have emerged as an important source of news to counter the > traditional media, most of which are owned by interests linked to the ruling > Barisan Nasional or BN coalition. > > The BN's dominance of media is one of its crucial advantages as it fends off > an increasingly potent opposition that made impressive election gains in > 2008. Sunday's election is expected to be the closest yet, though Malaysian > Prime Minister Najib Razak is favoured to win. > > Leading opposition politicians who attract big campaign crowds in cities say > they get a much cooler reception in rural areas, where access to the > Internet is rarer. > > Malaysia ranked 145th on a list of 179 countries in this year's World Press > Freedom report released by Reporters Without Borders. It was Malaysia's > lowest ever ranking. > > A survey released on Friday by the University of Nottingham's Malaysia > campus and Malaysia's Centre for Independent Journalism found that online > media gave almost equal coverage to the opposition and government parties, > while traditional media focused on the ruling BN coalition and its parties > "by a significant margin". > > POLICE RAIDS TO ONLINE ATTACKS > > Malaysiakini, the most popular of such websites, has weathered several > storms, including police raids, denied access to press conferences, > accusations of being linked to foreign agents and requests to take down > content, Chandran said. > > But in recent years the tactics appear to have shifted towards knocking the > site offline, primarily through distributed denial of service, or DDOS, > attacks, where servers are deluged by thousands of requests at the same > time. > > Harlan Mandel, CEO of New York-based Media Development Investment Fund, > which has worked with Malaysiakini for more than a decade and is a minority > investor, said in an email interview that Malaysiakini had become a focus > for attack after "establishing itself as the go-to site for reliable > election reporting for millions of Malaysians" in 2008. > > "Since then, it has come under repeated cyber attacks, generally coinciding > with sensitive political events like local elections and political rallies, > said Mandel. > > Malaysiakini is not alone. Last month a DDOS attack brought down three > related London-based radio web portals, according to Clare Rewcastle Brown, > their Malaysian-born founder. > > Jahabar Sadiq, CEO of Kuala Lumpur-based The Malaysian Insider, said his > news service had come under heavy DDOS attack shortly after six of his staff > were summoned to the regulator, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia > Commission or MCMC, a few weeks ago. They were asked, among other questions, > for technical details about their service provider. > > "It can't be a coincidence," he said in an interview. "They were asking > questions about our architecture which weren't required." > > BACKUP U.S. SERVERS > > At least half a dozen news or political websites have now shifted their > servers to U.S.-based CloudFlare, which offers protection against DDOS > attacks for a fraction of the cost other companies charge. CloudFlare said > that attacks on such sites had increased in the past week, mostly from > Malaysia-based computers or IP addresses it had not previously seen involved > in attacks. > > Now, Malaysiakini's Chandran and others say, their attackers appear to have > shifted gear again. > > The Malaysian Insider's mail service, which allows users to email articles > to others, was hacked two weeks ago, Sadiq said, triggering it to queue tens > of thousands of emails to send to users within a couple of hours. > > Malaysiakini's Chandran says the most recent wave of disruptions began late > last month when users complained the site could only be accessed > intermittently. One minute users could access the site, the next they > couldn't. > > They figured out that only those using Internet service providers who > channel their traffic through state-controlled Telekom Malaysia Berhad were > affected, while those accessing through smaller ISPs who use an > international gateway were still able to access the site. > > "It's a smarter way to do it," said Chandran. "It's a guerrilla style in > that it creeps up on you and it's harder to detect." > > Shortly after complaining informally to the MCMC, Chandran said, the attack > stopped. > > Since then, Malaysiakini discovered that some political sensitive videos it > had posted on YouTube could not be viewed if accessed from some local ISPs > and some Facebook pages featuring election-related content were also > affected. > > Such tactics appear to be using what is called deep packet inspection, where > Internet traffic is monitored and filtered via specific keywords, links or > digital signatures, which would require access to the ISP. > > INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED > > The MCMC said on Thursday that it was investigating such complaints but that > "preliminary investigations indicate that there were no such restrictions by > ISPs as alleged by certain quarters". > > Telekom Malaysia said in a written response to questions from Reuters that > it had set up a taskforce and network operating centre to ensure that its > network ran smoothly for its customers during the election period. > > "Malaysia has a free, open and robust online media environment. The > government does not censor the internet and welcomes constructive criticism > as part of the democratic process," said a government spokesman told > Reuters. > > "We deny any involvement in cyber-attacks. The government does not condone > attacks against the media in any form." > > Indeed, Malaysiakini's Chandran and others are careful not to accuse the > government or Telekom Malaysia directly. > > "We are an Internet-based company, we don't want to pick a fight with a > telco, we need them," Chandran said. "Besides we can't tell whether they're > doing it on purpose." > > It's almost impossible to figure out who is behind the attacks and not easy > to distinguish between a deliberate assault and the technical issues of > handling large and fluctuating waves of traffic. Independent security > experts said the available evidence appeared to confirm Malaysiakini's > conclusions. > > Dhillon Andrew Kannabhiran, Malaysian founder and CEO of the Hack In The Box > conferences, said that "stuff is being filtered or slowed down or otherwise > being messed around with for sure" on Telekom Malaysia's network, but he > said that it could have been done without the company's say-so or knowledge. > > In the meantime, websites are preparing for the worst by mirroring content > on other domain names and on Facebook. The Malaysian Insider has also set up > a mirror outside the country at themalaysianoutsider.com. > > Whatever the outcome of Sunday's election, Malaysia's increasingly > sophisticated Internet battleground reflects the future of struggles to > control and influence of information. > > The election-related DDOS attacks in Malaysia "follows a trend we've seen > elsewhere where DDOS is becoming a part of many elections", said Matthew > Prince, co-founder CEO of CloudFlare. > > Malaysia illustrated how political parties and the powers-that-be are > starting to use the Internet, said Mikko Hipponen, chief research officer of > Helsinki-based internet security company F-Secure which has large lab in > Kuala Lumpur. > > "They are taking a much more active role and, in some parts of the world, > they are not afraid to use the more offensive technologies to get what they > want," said Hipponen. > > "I believe we'll be seeing much more of this." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun May 5 09:48:28 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

Message-ID: Hi, My communications with the chair indicate that he is doing it because that is the ECOSOC way (my words) and that because he wants to give all stakeholders a chance to discuss whether it should be open of not. To be fair to the chair, he is taking a safe and possibility even reasonable route in making this determination. I just think that this bit of safe and reasonable action is risky and a bad idea. In terms of who may have asked the chair to keep it closed, if indeed someone did, I am not sure that it matters if they did so confidentially. In fact, if indeed there are those who asked for this, having the discussions might be a good thing as it will give us a chance to learn who it is that does not support transparency as the default condition. As for a joint letter. i might agree to be part of one, but only as long as it had _no_ content related to how other stakeholder groups did their choosing. The fact that it might be linked in any way, by anyone, at anytime, to anti-subsidiarity of stakeholder group decisions, would keep me from signing on to a joint letter. While I beleive all stakeholder groups should be as open as can be, it is up to them whether they are or not. My beliefs about their operations are irrelevant. I should also indicate that if the group decides not be open, or to use Chatham House rule, I will comply with the rule. I will argue against it, but will adhere to it. avri On 5 May 2013, at 04:38, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil >>> society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the >>> other stakeholder groups will support it too.! >> >> >> I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain consensus. >> >> This is one example of social justice that we could get behind. >> >> It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on as well. > > Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the demand from closure came from and what the rationale was. > > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun May 5 12:13:50 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 19:13:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] The Coming War Over Net Neutrality,,By Tim Wu, The New Yorker Message-ID: <5186853E.2000705@gmail.com> The Coming War Over Net Neutrality By Tim Wu, The New Yorker 05 May 13 om Wheeler , Obama's nominee to run the Federal Communications Commission, surely has much he hopes to get done. Perhaps it's freeing up some more wireless spectrum or bringing cell-phone service to Mars - who knows. But chances are (assuming his confirmation goes smoothly) that he'll end up spending time on different challenges, and a chief candidate is a resurgence of the net-neutrality wars. The outgoing chairman, Julius Genachowski, made many very good and important decisions, but he also made a rather terrible one that may darken Wheeler's term. Genachowski spent years and much political capital negotiating net-neutrality rules that everyone could live with, only to enact them in a way that is highly vulnerable to a court challenge . That challenge (brought, cynically, by Verizon after it negotiated the rules it wanted) may soon invalidate years of work and create industry chaos. The net-neutrality rules now in place reinforce the Internet's original design principle: that all traffic is carried equally and without any special charges beyond those of transmission. Among other things, the rules are a pricing truce for the Internet; without them, we can expect a fight that will serve no one's interests and will ultimately stick consumers with Internet bills that rise with the same speed as cable television's. Unfortunately, like American Presidents who hope to avoid the politics of the Middle East, the F.C.C. may ultimately have no choice but to get involved in this fight. But one very important thing has changed since last time. Cable operators like Time Warner and Comcast, if they think carefully, should come to understand that they now need a net-neutrality rule more than anyone. Ask a cable operator what makes its life miserable, and the answer is immediate and obvious: programming fees. Such fees have roughly doubled over the past decade during a period of near-flat inflation and economic stagnation. Sports is the most outrageous example: what ESPN charges cable operators keeps growing, and is now approaching five dollars per customer. The actual cost of providing the entire Internet to cable customers, which is something like a few dollars a month, is less than that. It is a lose-lose situation for nearly everyone (except athletes). The real victims are consumers, especially low-income consumers, who ultimately foot all the bills but cannot control the costs. If programming costs are the worst thing in cable, the best part of the business is selling broadband. Cable broadband , which costs almost nothing to provide once the infrastructure is built, has little real competition, and operators can charge between forty and sixty dollars for the product, yielding margins that analyst Craig Moffitt describes as "comically profitable." Margins greater than ninety per cent are a sweet business no matter what you're doing, and what cable operators have to realize is how crucial net neutrality is to making those margins possible. An important aspect of the Internet's original design is that many prices were set at zero - what have been called zero-price rules. The price to join the network is zero. The price that users and sites pay to reach others is zero: a blogger doesn't need to pay to reach Comcast's customers. And the price that big Web sites charge broadband operators to carry their content is also zero. It's a subtle point, but these three zeros are a large part of what makes the Internet what it is. If net neutrality goes away, so does the agreement to freeze prices at zero. What net neutrality means in practice for cable operators is that they don't have to deal with rising programming costs in broadband. Cable operators pay Disney good money to carry ABC as a cable channel. But when a cable customer watches ABC shows over the Internet, using Hulu Plus or Amazon, the operator pays nothing. When they go to the ABC Web site, they also pay nothing. Rather, the consumer deals with the content provider directly, by watching ads or paying Amazon. The result: cable doesn't have to pass on costs that it cannot control. Back in the aughts, cable operators hated the idea of net neutrality because they hoped to charge then-rich firms like Yahoo extra cash to reach their customers (in telecom jargon, a "termination fee"). But that was when the Internet companies were far weaker. Times have changed, and firms like Google and Facebook now hold serious bargaining power. You can't expect to provide a decent Internet service that doesn't include Facebook and Google. And so, instead of being able to charge Google to reach its customers, cable operators, absent net neutrality, may have to pay programming fees to Google. In other words, Google might very well become the next ESPN, and the whole nightmare will start again. Admittedly, it is hard to know exactly how things would work out if the zero-price rules are abandoned. Cable still has serious market power, and might, on balance, be able to charge more than it gets charged. But if you're a cable operator, why take that bet when you're already sitting on giant profit margins? Why risk the best business going? Beyond cable operators, a battle royale over Internet programming and termination fees would ultimately be terrible for consumers; the Internet would start to get both worse and more expensive. Think of it this way: net neutrality, which sets all these prices at zero, is effectively a grand truce between the big app firms and the infrastructure providers. It eliminates an unnecessary middleman: consumers deal directly with content vendors and app firms. That's a much healthier market dynamic than one driven by hidden, passed-on costs. If cable TV isn't a good enough example, consider the dysfunction of the health-care industry, where consumers never see what they are paying for. That's what the present rule avoids. Finally, and most importantly for the public, the net-neutrality rule continues to provide a kind of subsidy to smaller speakers and startups, from bloggers to Quora and Wikipedia. The Internet would look a lot different if these kinds of players had to pay cable before reaching their customers. It would start to look a lot more like cable TV, and few things could really be worse than that. Wheeler and the other members of the Federal Communications Commission will be very tempted to try and avoid and ignore net neutrality during Obama's second term. If, magically, the rules aren't struck down, they will have that luxury. But if the rules are struck down, avoiding the problem may lead to a replication of the horrors of the cable-television market. There's trouble brewing; facing it is both the Commission's responsibility and its destiny. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rsn-T.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 512 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun May 5 12:17:36 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 19:17:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Are All Telephone Calls Recorded and Accessible to the US Government?,,By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK Message-ID: <51868620.6050704@gmail.com> If true, perhaps some international standards on communicative freedom may even help Americans as well? Are All Telephone Calls Recorded and Accessible to the US Government? By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK 05 May 13 */A former FBI counterterrorism agent claims on CNN that this is the case/* he real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are. Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps , anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way. On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente , a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could: BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them? CLEMENTE: "No, /there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation./ It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out. BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible. CLEMENTE: "No, /welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not/." "All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak". On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored: Let's repeat that last part: "no digital communication is secure", by which he means /not/ that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications - meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like - are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is. There have been some previous indications that this is true. Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that AT&T and other telecoms had built a special network that allowed the National Security Agency full and unfettered access to data about the telephone calls and the content of email communications for all of their customers. Specifically, Klein explained "that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T" and that "contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists . . . much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic." But his amazing revelations were mostly ignored and, when Congress retroactively immunized the nation's telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein's claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court. That every single telephone call is recorded and stored would also explain this extraordinary revelation by the Washington Post in 2010 : /Every day/, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. It would also help explain the revelations of former NSA official William Binney , who resigned from the agency in protest over its systemic spying on the domestic communications of US citizens, that the US government has "assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about US citizens with other US citizens" (which counts only communications transactions and not financial and other transactions), and that "the data that's being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want." Despite the extreme secrecy behind which these surveillance programs operate, there have been periodic reports of serious abuse . Two Democratic Senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, have been warning for years that Americans would be "stunned" to learn what the US government is doing in terms of secret surveillance. Strangely, back in 2002 - when hysteria over the 9/11 attacks (and thus acquiescence to government power) was at its peak - the Pentagon's attempt to implement what it called the "Total Information Awareness" program (TIA) sparked so much public controversy that it had to be official scrapped. But it has been incrementally re-instituted - without the creepy (though honest) name and all-seeing-eye logo - with little controversy or even notice. Back in 2010, worldwide controversy erupted when the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates banned the use of Blackberries because some communications were inaccessible to government intelligence agencies, and that could not be tolerated. The Obama administration condemned this move on the ground that it threatened core freedoms, only to turn around six weeks later and demand that all forms of digital communications allow the US government backdoor access to intercept them. Put another way, the US government embraced exactly the same rationale invoked by the UAE and Saudi agencies: that no communications can be off limits. Indeed, the UAE, when responding to condemnations from the Obama administration, noted that it was simply doing exactly that which the US government does: "'In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance - and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight - that Blackberry grants the US and other governments and nothing more,' [UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al] Otaiba said. 'Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the US for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement.'" That no human communications can be allowed to take place without the scrutinizing eye of the US government is indeed the animating principle of the US Surveillance State. Still, this revelation, made in passing on CNN, that every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored is something which most people undoubtedly do not know, even if the small group of people who focus on surveillance issues believed it to be true (clearly, both Burnett and Costello were shocked to hear this). Some new polling suggests that Americans, even after the Boston attack, are growing increasingly concerned about erosions of civil liberties in the name of Terrorism. Even those people who claim it does not matter instinctively understand the value of personal privacy: they put locks on their bedroom doors and vigilantly safeguard their email passwords. That's why the US government so desperately maintains a wall of secrecy around their surveillance capabilities: because they fear that people will find their behavior unacceptably intrusive and threatening, as they did even back in 2002 when John Poindexter's TIA was unveiled. Mass surveillance is the hallmark of a tyrannical political culture. But whatever one's views on that, the more that is known about what the US government and its surveillance agencies are doing, the better. This admission by this former FBI agent on CNN gives a very good sense for just how limitless these activities are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rsn-T.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 512 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun May 5 14:03:49 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 21:03:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good) In-Reply-To: <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5183B97C.4040206@itforchange.net> <20130503212011.339d10ac@quill.bollow.ch> <5184A071.3060805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51869F05.7040904@gmail.com> Parminder I think here I would ask you to trust your intuition. There are serious limits to dialogue on this IGC platform, much improved recently despite denunciations of its caustic nature, even though it has improved much recently. As McTim kindly pointed out about the dominance of 'single rooters' confirms minority status of certain groups. You pointed out the difficulty of discussing net neutrality in this forum, etc. From this one can glean these limits and /complementary/ fora are needed to deepen analysis. IGC relevance in this context may confirm your irrelevance. Would be glad to discuss this offlist further with you and others of like minded persuasion. This is not detract from recent changes. But strategic engagement may be more fruitful. Riaz On 2013/05/04 08:45 AM, parminder wrote: > It is fine if this is the interpretation of what IGC is, not much of > an advocacy group but a kind of an open platform or forum for civil > society groups. And I am increasingly inclined or maybe resigned to > this perspective. But that still begs an organised constituency and > group at the global level that can systematically deal with Internet > governance issues pertaining to social and economic justice. This is > the gap that I spoke about in my previous email. > > parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Sun May 5 18:15:38 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 10:15:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

Message-ID: <5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the update Avri. I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. I am not interested in requests for publication of the other stakeholders' selection processes. Joy On 6/05/2013 1:48 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > My communications with the chair indicate that he is doing it > because that is the ECOSOC way (my words) and that because he wants > to give all stakeholders a chance to discuss whether it should be > open of not. To be fair to the chair, he is taking a safe and > possibility even reasonable route in making this determination. I > just think that this bit of safe and reasonable action is risky and > a bad idea. > > > In terms of who may have asked the chair to keep it closed, if > indeed someone did, I am not sure that it matters if they did so > confidentially. In fact, if indeed there are those who asked for > this, having the discussions might be a good thing as it will give > us a chance to learn who it is that does not support transparency > as the default condition. > > As for a joint letter. i might agree to be part of one, but only > as long as it had _no_ content related to how other stakeholder > groups did their choosing. The fact that it might be linked in any > way, by anyone, at anytime, to anti-subsidiarity of stakeholder > group decisions, would keep me from signing on to a joint letter. > While I beleive all stakeholder groups should be as open as can be, > it is up to them whether they are or not. My beliefs about their > operations are irrelevant. > > I should also indicate that if the group decides not be open, or > to use Chatham House rule, I will comply with the rule. I will > argue against it, but will adhere to it. > > avri > > > On 5 May 2013, at 04:38, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>> wrote: >>>> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something >>>> that the civil society participants can unanimously support. >>>> I will see if some of the other stakeholder groups will >>>> support it too.! >>> >>> >>> I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain >>> consensus. >>> >>> This is one example of social justice that we could get >>> behind. >>> >>> It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on >>> as well. >> >> Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of >> the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the >> demand from closure came from and what the rationale was. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> ____________________________________________________________ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhtoKAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqB5gH/RJAhWOZkDMhs6X0x/5kLpfU 5aRjDe8ajRaaQA7mbbHfZB7UfwbvAMNTaa/NFrxjMjIZyyQD60SD3ic8nNfsRfsO TqX6GALjAde6uK0gH5CibC4yREqEVw8ZqGJSEH85FzAAqZuj9lB/NedJoCSj78K2 IpDiYKvEdOW+htmyKj4Sb53SvkJ0Cs6jfJJMg90RkL26IflED0SPrTeqX0edds7U w6Y0QE7qsFuAhywCDCO1bP8m3Agf4atQmeIzPnjKWA35hrfUo5SE22rjGvH56fUO sUzzIBQc2RgjPFO2Sy9XDPeO8+n9+n+LejxUkONsyssSgahZC8ME96ZTvlo8fEw= =UAjF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 5 18:22:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 18:22:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for the update Avri. > I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the > opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. > I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > stakeholders' selection processes. I agree with Avri and Joy! -- 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 keith at internetnz.net.nz Sun May 5 19:30:09 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:30:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> Message-ID: <5186EB81.5030500@internetnz.net.nz> I also would certainly expect CSTD to run this as an open meeting and trust Joy, Avri and others who understand the elements of multistakeholderism to encourage CSTD to be more open, transparent and accountable. Cheers Keith Davidson On 6/05/2013 10:15 a.m., joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for the update Avri. > I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the > opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. > I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > stakeholders' selection processes. > > Joy > > > On 6/05/2013 1:48 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> My communications with the chair indicate that he is doing it >> because that is the ECOSOC way (my words) and that because he wants >> to give all stakeholders a chance to discuss whether it should be >> open of not. To be fair to the chair, he is taking a safe and >> possibility even reasonable route in making this determination. I >> just think that this bit of safe and reasonable action is risky and >> a bad idea. >> >> >> In terms of who may have asked the chair to keep it closed, if >> indeed someone did, I am not sure that it matters if they did so >> confidentially. In fact, if indeed there are those who asked for >> this, having the discussions might be a good thing as it will give >> us a chance to learn who it is that does not support transparency >> as the default condition. >> >> As for a joint letter. i might agree to be part of one, but only >> as long as it had _no_ content related to how other stakeholder >> groups did their choosing. The fact that it might be linked in any >> way, by anyone, at anytime, to anti-subsidiarity of stakeholder >> group decisions, would keep me from signing on to a joint letter. >> While I beleive all stakeholder groups should be as open as can be, >> it is up to them whether they are or not. My beliefs about their >> operations are irrelevant. >> >> I should also indicate that if the group decides not be open, or >> to use Chatham House rule, I will comply with the rule. I will >> argue against it, but will adhere to it. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 5 May 2013, at 04:38, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> wrote: >>>>> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something >>>>> that the civil society participants can unanimously support. >>>>> I will see if some of the other stakeholder groups will >>>>> support it too.! >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain >>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> This is one example of social justice that we could get >>>> behind. >>>> >>>> It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on >>>> as well. >>> >>> Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of >>> the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the >>> demand from closure came from and what the rationale was. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhtoKAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqB5gH/RJAhWOZkDMhs6X0x/5kLpfU > 5aRjDe8ajRaaQA7mbbHfZB7UfwbvAMNTaa/NFrxjMjIZyyQD60SD3ic8nNfsRfsO > TqX6GALjAde6uK0gH5CibC4yREqEVw8ZqGJSEH85FzAAqZuj9lB/NedJoCSj78K2 > IpDiYKvEdOW+htmyKj4Sb53SvkJ0Cs6jfJJMg90RkL26IflED0SPrTeqX0edds7U > w6Y0QE7qsFuAhywCDCO1bP8m3Agf4atQmeIzPnjKWA35hrfUo5SE22rjGvH56fUO > sUzzIBQc2RgjPFO2Sy9XDPeO8+n9+n+LejxUkONsyssSgahZC8ME96ZTvlo8fEw= > =UAjF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Sun May 5 19:32:14 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 16:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> Message-ID: <1367796734.90700.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I agree that CS reps should request that CSTD WG adopt openness as a working method. But folks need to get to the first meeting. After that, then a first appraisal can be done and contributions to working methods can begin. On publishing processes of members' selection to the CSTD WG itself, I am a bit surprised that this is yet to go down with some of us.. I will say to let go.. All the best N Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: McTim To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; joy Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for the update Avri. > I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the > opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. > I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > stakeholders' selection processes. I agree with Avri and Joy! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 6 01:35:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:05:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

Message-ID: <51874106.1010705@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 May 2013 07:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > My communications with the chair indicate that he is doing it because that is the ECOSOC way (my words) and that because he wants to give all stakeholders a chance to discuss whether it should be open of not. To be fair to the chair, he is taking a safe and possibility even reasonable route in making this determination. I just think that this bit of safe and reasonable action is risky and a bad idea. > > In terms of who may have asked the chair to keep it closed, if indeed someone did, I am not sure that it matters if they did so confidentially. In fact, if indeed there are those who asked for this, having the discussions might be a good thing as it will give us a chance to learn who it is that does not support transparency as the default condition. > > As for a joint letter. i might agree to be part of one, but only as long as it had _no_ content related to how other stakeholder groups did their choosing. The fact that it might be linked in any way, by anyone, at anytime, to anti-subsidiarity of stakeholder group decisions, A very interesting concept! But, no, subsidiarity was never meant to be quoted to bypass basic higher principles of democratic, rights-based etc, governance in any polity. If it could be so quoted, then UN human rights council has no business to be interrogating human rights situation in Syria or Sri Lanka. A tribal chief can declare that female foeticide is officially sanctioned in his territory and so on.... Openness and transparency are higher principles, and in this case of MS (multistakeholder) rep selection also stamped unanimously by the WG on Improvements and then the UN GA. Such higher principles are not subject to the subsidiarity rule. They in fact frame subsidiarity in democratic governance .. But MSism isnt bound by democratic traditions, is it! It is a completely new species . Who was it who recently compared MSism to tribalism on this list... > would keep me from signing on to a joint letter. While I beleive all stakeholder groups should be as open as can be, it is up to them whether they are or not. My beliefs about their operations are irrelevant. Does this group then undertake not to ever question how governments are formed, whether they are democratic or not. A strange view, IMHO. This is throwing away democracy. Making it irrelevant how governments are chosen as long as some people presents itself as government nominees. Or, maybe I am extrapolating your statement wrongly, and you do not consider governments as stakeholder groups in the same manner as nongov stakeholder groups... parminder > I should also indicate that if the group decides not be open, or to use Chatham House rule, I will comply with the rule. I will argue against it, but will adhere to it. > > avri > > > On 5 May 2013, at 04:38, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil >>>> society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the >>>> other stakeholder groups will support it too.! >>> I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain consensus. >>> >>> This is one example of social justice that we could get behind. >>> >>> It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on as well. >> Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the demand from closure came from and what the rationale was. >> >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 6 09:41:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 06:41:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> Message-ID: <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> Ah yes, we must insist on openness for the geese but not for the ganders or is it vice versa, I'm afraid I always forget in this piling of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy... or if some find this statement rather too bald/bold -- we must insist that you do as I say, not as I do... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; joy Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for the update Avri. > I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the > opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. > I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > stakeholders' selection processes. I agree with Avri and Joy! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon May 6 10:22:36 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:22:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> Hi, Thank you for calling those you disagree with hypocrites. As far as i am concerned the members of every group are responsible for calling for transparency within their own groups. And what does this have to do with gendered issues (geese, ganders?) avri On 6 May 2013, at 09:41, michael gurstein wrote: > Ah yes, we must insist on openness for the geese but not for the ganders or > is it vice versa, I'm afraid I always forget in this piling of hypocrisy > upon hypocrisy... or if some find this statement rather too bald/bold -- we > must insist that you do as I say, not as I do... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; joy > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Thanks for the update Avri. >> I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the >> opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. >> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other >> stakeholders' selection processes. > > I agree with Avri and Joy! > > -- > 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon May 6 10:36:54 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:36:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51874106.1010705@itforchange.net> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<51874106.1010705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CED2B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > A very interesting concept! But, no, subsidiarity was never meant to be > quoted to bypass basic higher principles of democratic, rights-based > etc, governance in any polity. If it could be so quoted, then UN human > rights council has no business to be interrogating human rights > situation in Syria or Sri Lanka. A tribal chief can declare that female > foeticide is officially sanctioned in his territory and so on.... > Openness and transparency are higher principles, and in this case of MS > (multistakeholder) rep selection also stamped unanimously by the WG on > Improvements and then the UN GA. Such higher principles are not subject > to the subsidiarity rule. They in fact frame subsidiarity in democratic I wish to make it clear that I agree with Parminder on this. > Does this group then undertake not to ever question how governments are > formed, whether they are democratic or not. A strange view, IMHO. This > is throwing away democracy. Making it irrelevant how governments are > chosen as long as some people presents itself as government nominees. > Or, maybe I am extrapolating your statement wrongly, and you do not > consider governments as stakeholder groups in the same manner as nongov > stakeholder groups... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 6 10:42:11 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 20:12:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> Message-ID: <5187C143.4040508@ITforChange.net> On 05/06/2013 07:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for calling those you disagree with hypocrites. > > As far as i am concerned the members of every group are responsible for calling for transparency within their own groups. Avri Do you mean that when governments are non transparent, it does not concern us. if you think it does, how does it reconcile with your statement above? regards Guru > And what does this have to do with gendered issues (geese, ganders?) > > avri > > > On 6 May 2013, at 09:41, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Ah yes, we must insist on openness for the geese but not for the ganders or >> is it vice versa, I'm afraid I always forget in this piling of hypocrisy >> upon hypocrisy... or if some find this statement rather too bald/bold -- we >> must insist that you do as I say, not as I do... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim >> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:23 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; joy >> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Thanks for the update Avri. >>> I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the >>> opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. >>> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other >>> stakeholders' selection processes. >> I agree with Avri and Joy! >> >> -- >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 6 11:15:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 08:15:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> Message-ID: <026901ce4a6c$8822f9c0$9868ed40$@gmail.com> >> I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the >> opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. >> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other >> stakeholders' selection processes. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:23 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation Hi, Thank you for calling those you disagree with hypocrites. As far as i am concerned the members of every group are responsible for calling for transparency within their own groups. And what does this have to do with gendered issues (geese, ganders?) avri On 6 May 2013, at 09:41, michael gurstein wrote: > Ah yes, we must insist on openness for the geese but not for the > ganders or is it vice versa, I'm afraid I always forget in this piling > of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy... or if some find this statement rather > too bald/bold -- we must insist that you do as I say, not as I do... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; joy > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, joy wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Thanks for the update Avri. >> I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the >> opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary. >> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other >> stakeholders' selection processes. > > I agree with Avri and Joy! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon May 6 11:43:54 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:43:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5187C143.4040508@ITforChange.net> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <5187C143.4040508@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On 6 May 2013, at 10:42, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 05/06/2013 07:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> As far as i am concerned the members of every group are responsible for calling for transparency within their own groups. > > Avri > > Do you mean that when governments are non transparent, it does not concern us. if you think it does, how does it reconcile with your statement above? It can concern us. But I have no role in calling for the Indian government to be more transparent or with regard to its ways doing things except with regard to Human Rights and other treaties treaties they have signed. The Internet may be borderless, but countries and stakeholder groups have borders. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 6 12:36:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 18:36:37 +0200 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation) In-Reply-To: <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> Hypocrisy is a real problem of the real world, and I would be very surprised if there's anyone among us who can look back onto their life and truthfully say that they have never been hypocritical. Maybe the best we can do is to be aware that this is a pervasive problem, and try to minimize its impact as much as we reasonably can, similar to how we have procedures designed for limiting the impact of personal bias. In regard to bias there is a huge body of literature on how to deal with the issue; that includes advice which empowers to talk about the problem area without automatically offending people. Is someone here able to recommend something insightful about dealing with challenges related to the issue of hypocrisy? When Jesus talked to his disciples about their personal, very very human, challenges in regard to hypocrisy, he did that as a trusted mentor; when he talked to the Pharisees about their hypocrisy, that was after (for quite independent reasons) there was no realistic chance anymore of a constructive relationship with them. But how does one talk about issues related to this problem area among peers, without taking needless risks of the conversation degenerating into name-calling or accusations of name-calling, etc? Greetings, Norbert Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for calling those you disagree with hypocrites. > > As far as i am concerned the members of every group are responsible > for calling for transparency within their own groups. > > And what does this have to do with gendered issues (geese, ganders?) > > avri > > > On 6 May 2013, at 09:41, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Ah yes, we must insist on openness for the geese but not for the > > ganders or is it vice versa, I'm afraid I always forget in this > > piling of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy... or if some find this > > statement rather too bald/bold -- we must insist that you do as I > > say, not as I do... > > > > M -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon May 6 13:48:27 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:48:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Teacher teasing 2013 Message-ID: Can anyone offer some insights about something that really happened? I am based in a very small country - Saint Lucia - but in so far as it is possible I am deliberately obscuring the details of this story in an attempt to protect the "victim" from further annoyance. A couple of weeks ago someone set up a social media account (Twitter or Facebook, I'm not sure which) in the name of a senior teacher at one of the local schools. The comments and photographs proclaimed the sexual successes with colleagues within the school community of the purported owner of the account. When this came to light the purported owner "went ballistic" and threatened investigation by the FBI and long terms in prison for the perpetrators. The junior school is reported to be terrified. Meanwhile another member of staff, working with a student, has managed to deactivate the offending account. A friend contacted me to ask - "Could the FBI ...?" " Can someone else deactivate another person's account?" ... Can anyone offer an opinion? Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon May 6 14:22:00 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 21:22:00 +0300 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation) In-Reply-To: <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> Norbert After some of us have experienced the weight of the 'majority' (if not in always in specifics at an individual but in momentum, as McTim kindly bragged about large single rooter percentages recently, giving us some countermajoritarian validation) there remain some issues. But there is a new tenor and it is working out well. So thanks for that. I think we can be less inflammatory (and I for one may well need correcting and guidance) but no less precise, but it needs some restraint. First, terms. Double standards are very apt. So is disingenuous. Once these are raised then... Second, because these may at first glance (or from a different perspective) this opens up the question of motive. Here especially some restraint is called for, but it is also tempting to drive a point home. And perhaps some co-co intervention at that point would be useful to keep language persuasive. Motive makes for difficult dialogue. For instance the allegation made that some of one ilk picked a fight because Gurstein was disappointed for not being selected. Despite what this reveals about these making the accusation (I certainly was not acting in concert with others on this issue), it was not possible to discuss this. It did however create doubt as to the voracity of some of the concerns laid out (some even purely technical), which I suppose was enough to achieve the desired effect. Then there are more systemic motives, but we have been there before, an undoubtedly will again. However I mention all this because third world provincialism is not different from rich country provincialism, it is only one of kind. Hope this is provocative, but helpful. Riaz On 2013/05/06 07:36 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > But how does one talk about issues related to this problem area among > peers, without taking needless risks of the conversation degenerating > into name-calling or accusations of name-calling, etc? > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon May 6 15:59:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 15:59:41 -0400 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation) In-Reply-To: <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> References: <018e01ce4401$747bf5a0$5d73e0e0$@ch> <51846900.5080809@apc.org> <8641942b-5211-4934-a0fa-0cdbb1192487@email.android.com>

<5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Norbert > > After some of us have experienced the weight of the 'majority' (if not in > always in specifics at an individual but in momentum, as McTim kindly > bragged I wasn't being kindly nor bragging, simply stating the truth, the vast majority want at least loose coherence from the DNS. I suspect you do as well, which makes you a "single-rooter" too. > about large single rooter percentages recently, giving us some > countermajoritarian validation) there remain some issues. But there is a > new tenor and it is working out well. So thanks for that. > > I think we can be less inflammatory (and I for one may well need > correcting and guidance) but no less precise, but it needs some restraint. > > First, terms. Double standards are very apt. So is disingenuous. Once > these are raised then... > > Second, because these may at first glance (or from a different > perspective) this opens up the question of motive. Here especially some > restraint is called for, but it is also tempting to drive a point home. And > perhaps some co-co intervention at that point would be useful to keep > language persuasive. > > Motive makes for difficult dialogue. For instance the allegation made that > some of one ilk picked a fight because Gurstein was disappointed for not > being selected. I think the issue was that we shouldn't be telling others how to choose their folk. > Despite what this reveals about these making the accusation (I certainly > was not acting in concert with others on this issue), it was not possible > to discuss this. but discuss it we did, and continue to do it seems. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon May 6 18:08:19 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 00:08:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Teacher teasing 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Deirdre, ask google: *hacking facebook* Cheers, Louis - - - On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Can anyone offer some insights about something that really happened? > I am based in a very small country - Saint Lucia - but in so far as it is > possible I am deliberately obscuring the details of this story in an > attempt to protect the "victim" from further annoyance. > A couple of weeks ago someone set up a social media account (Twitter or > Facebook, I'm not sure which) in the name of a senior teacher at one of the > local schools. The comments and photographs proclaimed the sexual successes > with colleagues within the school community of the purported owner of the > account. > When this came to light the purported owner "went ballistic" and > threatened investigation by the FBI and long terms in prison for the > perpetrators. The junior school is reported to be terrified. Meanwhile > another member of staff, working with a student, has managed to deactivate > the offending account. > A friend contacted me to ask - "Could the FBI ...?" " Can someone else > deactivate another person's account?" ... > Can anyone offer an opinion? > Deirdre > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Mon May 6 18:24:45 2013 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 02:24:45 +0400 Subject: [governance] Teacher teasing 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, There has been an option on Facebook aimed to deactivate other person's account by submitting a report that the person is dead. Maybe that option was used... Regards, Narine On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Deirdre, ask google: *hacking facebook* > > Cheers, Louis > - - - > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Can anyone offer some insights about something that really happened? >> I am based in a very small country - Saint Lucia - but in so far as it is >> possible I am deliberately obscuring the details of this story in an >> attempt to protect the "victim" from further annoyance. >> A couple of weeks ago someone set up a social media account (Twitter or >> Facebook, I'm not sure which) in the name of a senior teacher at one of the >> local schools. The comments and photographs proclaimed the sexual successes >> with colleagues within the school community of the purported owner of the >> account. >> When this came to light the purported owner "went ballistic" and >> threatened investigation by the FBI and long terms in prison for the >> perpetrators. The junior school is reported to be terrified. Meanwhile >> another member of staff, working with a student, has managed to deactivate >> the offending account. >> A friend contacted me to ask - "Could the FBI ...?" " Can someone else >> deactivate another person's account?" ... >> Can anyone offer an opinion? >> Deirdre >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Media Education Center www.safe.am www.immasin.am www.mediaeducation.am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 6 19:21:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 01:21:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net>