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> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote on 25 Apr 2013, in reply to a posting from me: > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Even if IETF's processes do not follow the traditional patterns of > > democracy (in particular, they do not involve voting, and they make > > it hard for non-techies to participate) really the only major > > hurdles to effective participation in the decision-making processes > > that have been shaping the Internet (in the sense of the > > communication network, not talking about the broader sense of > > "Internet" right now that includes the epiphenomenon) have been > > willingness to engage and having a sufficient understanding of the > > subject matter under discussion to actually understand the > > suggestions and the relevant arguments. > > > > The technical development of the Internet in its significant early > > formative stage was not driven by special interest type business > > interests, but by people who truly care about what I'd call the > > public interest. > > [Milton L Mueller] So let's summarize your argument. There was > nothing like "democracy" in the internet's early technical > development, That is not what I wrote. In my view, there are processes that do not involve voting (and hence do not conform what I called “the traditional patterns of democracy” but which can nevertheless appropriately be called “democratic”. Specifically I would suggest that this is the case for appropriately institutionalized consensus processes, and that it is also the case under some circumstances for exploratory technical development processes where forking (*) is legally and practically possible. By the way, the Tunis Agenda seems to also use the word “democratic” in such a broader sense where voting does not seem to be involved in what is meant: “The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” “The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.” > [Milton L Mueller] I'm sorry, but those processes were democratic > only in relation to the very, very small group of men (about 95%) who > participated in them. Who by the way were also about 95% American and > European. In ancient Athens, only a small minority was legally allowed to participate in the democratic processes. That does not invalidate the fact that the male citizens of Athens have made an important contribution to the development of democracy. Of course I agree that any and all barriers to the participation of people who would otherwise be interested are serious problems, especially when there are barriers that have a systemic discriminatory effect. However I disagree with the view that the removal of barriers to participation will automatically make a decision-making system more democratic. For example, it is often mentioned that corporations pay taxes, but they are not represented in parliaments. Would it make a system of parliamentary democracy more democratic to change it so that half of the members of parliament are elected by corporations and only the other half is elected according to the public vote of the citizens? Of course not! The resulting “multistakeholder”(?) system would IMO not even deserve to be called democratic at all. > The game is much bigger, many more people are involved, and > now it is MORE democratic in that sense, and as a consequence of > being more democratic, people bring their economic interests to the > table. That is inevitable. It is part of democracy, you cannot > insulate society from that. To a farmer, farm subsidies may be in the > public interest, and certainly you cannot deny that farmers are part > of the public. Any concept of democracy that has no role for the > negotiation of economic interest is irrelevant. In negotiations those who have more power typically have more influence on the result. I don't object e.g. to the negotiation of coalition treaties that occurs regularly in some systems of parliamentary democracy, because the relevant kind of power there is of democratic origin and it will last only until the next election. If we move from traditional democratic governance to some kind of governnance that involves multistakeholder processes, I think we need to be very careful to avoid structures that effectively give any political power on the basis of economic power. > By the way, where does market-based governance figure in your world > view? In every area where markets produce good results that can be reasonably viewed as being in the public interest, and to the full extent that that is the case, it is from my perspective the preferred form of governance to simply allow private enterprises and the markets to do their job. > Granted that markets need to be checked (but so do democratic > processes), they provide individual users and suppliers a great deal > of freedom to interact in mutually acceptable ways. Why does this > form of governance - which has played such a vital role in making the > internet accessible and innovative and beneficial - NEVER show up in > your discussions? I don't think that I would be telling anyone anything new if I were to write about that non-problem. There are however some problems that need to be addressed, and there is a need for appropriate mechanisms and appropriate concepts for doing that. > Repression of unpopular groups and views can be democratically > popular. Repression of unpopular groups and views might be popular, but unless this is about groups and views which are somehow illegitimate to the point of being actually harmful to someone, I think that it is clear that such repression cannot qualify as being democratic. Even in contexts where democracy is implemented by means of majority voting, if a majority desires something that would violate the fundamental values on which democracy is based, actually making that decision cannot be democratic because it cannot be democratic to violate the foundation of democracy. For example, the state-sanctioned murder of Socrates may have been popular among the 500-man jury of Athenians that sentenced him to death, but it certainly wasn't democratic. Greetings, Norbert (*) Note: For some information on forking in the context of software development, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 A similar freedom to fork also exists in regard to technical developments pertaining to the Internet that are not encumbered by patents and that are conducted in the open e.g. by means of discussion via Internet-Drafts. -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon May 6 21:51:04 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 01:51:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Introducing WiGiT v0.2; with - open global - public policy inside Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FD10B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Please find WiGiT v0.2 open specifications at: http://wigit.ischool.syr.edu/assets/open-specs/0424WiGiT_Open_Specs_V0.2.pdf IGCers may find section 3.7, 'Economic, Legal and Policy Component,' p. 19, of special interest. IGCers will note that the 10 Internet Rights and Principles are there; as is the 'modern paradigm for standards' document; as is Michael Gurstein's critique of same. Needless to say, by the time we get to v1.0 one might hope for further expansion and refinement of the open specifications., As indicated in the appendix, the specifications are now extending from the distributed experimental testbed of about 100 National Science Foundation Partnerships for Innovation partner campuses, companies, and communities to enterprise, cloud mobility and smart grid interoperability use cases. To summarize my views on relevance for IGC: 1) I'm not kidding, we are creating a new commons right now, one that is standards-based/creating, but also explicitly includes room for a number of policy and governance mechanisms and specifically the 10 Internet Rights and Principles. Whether set by groups and individuals, firms, or for regulatory compliance and/or insurance reasons, open global public policy is most definitely built in. 2) Meaning it - is too - possible to build in open/commons and proprietary services and software in the future Internet. a) the meaning of 'open' and 'commons' are NOT words the IGC masses are confused over as esteemed colleagues may have alleged. In fact in their spare time they have contributed to this new one, for cloud to edge services, with security and privacy built in. 3) Michael - is too - techie enough to speak for the technical and academic community, see he's in the middle of an open specs document, which also references an IETF doc. ; ) 4) To Parminder, Riaz and other friends feeling a bit frustrated perhaps at limits to forward progress at times...see ps below ; ) Lee PS: b) IGCers are welcome to virtually join WiGiT and edit away at the doc, wiki-style, since we are already working on v0.3 in cooperation with IEEE P2030.4 working group on smart grid interoperability. To join wigit, no cost no obligation virtual organization, email elnanno at syr.edu. More information on what this is all about from an environmental sustainability view will be discussed May 10 10am-12pm est, all are welcome to webconference or dial in to that, or show up in Syracuse if convenient, to the Center of Excellence for Energy and Environmental Systems. PSS: A 'Workplace as a Service' Use Case will be available later in the week to make the point of that perhaps clearer. Syracuse University will be demoing at 'Management World' in Nice, May 13-16, and discussing the open specifications further for cloud mobility/Bring Your Own Device use contexts. More to come. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 7 00:41:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 10:11:57 +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> <5186DA0A.70808@apc.org> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <5187C143.4040508@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <51888615.3060301@itforchange.net> On Monday 06 May 2013 09:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > 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. This is one of the strongest statements i have ever heard in support of the Westphalian model of complete sovereignty . I did not know that you, Avri, were such a keen supporter of that model. I completely disagree with such a formula of non interference and indifference, and believe in the concept of one public interest across stakeholder groups, and also one global public interest across countries, which is the job of respective polities (national and global) to discover and establish - this is basic democratic theory. (I also refuse to believe that all that there is to global public interest is already locked in existing treaties.) > > The Internet may be borderless, but countries and stakeholder groups have borders. But, good you mention borders of stakeholder groups. However, one notes that there is (1) a lack of clarity about any such borders/ boundaries maintained by the most enthusiastic supporters of MSism and (2) considerable opportunistic movements across borders..... Recently we were denied a clear picture about the borders of the technical and academic community stakeholder group . A few year earlier it was insisted that an office holder of a key technical organisation in the Internet space (an RIR) should be nominated by civil society as a rep for some body in a show of oneness across civil society and technical community.... parminder > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 7 02:00:12 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:00:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good) In-Reply-To: <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5188986C.7000909@gmail.com> Leaving aside some of the other issues, On 2013/05/07 02:21 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Of course I agree that any and all barriers to the participation of > people who would otherwise be interested are serious problems, > especially when there are barriers that have a systemic discriminatory > effect. One needs to be careful about the single vision, that participation or inclusion is always good. The issue must be qualitative - sometimes exclusion is a kinder option! This is not to say that it is idiotic (classical definition> one who does not participate in the democratic process), but that in and of itself non-participation is a political act. 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 Tue May 7 02:07:20 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:07:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Introducing WiGiT v0.2; with - open global - public policy inside In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FD10B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FD10B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51889A18.4030107@gmail.com> On 2013/05/07 04:51 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > 4) To Parminder, Riaz and other friends feeling a bit frustrated perhaps at limits to forward progress at times...see ps below ; ) Thanks for this Lee. It seems interesting. Just as a point of modality for engagement, what, we, or precisely I, find problematic about some of the deliberations is that arguments evolve and that sometimes a narrative is built from our views that forces us back time and time again to first principles, rehashing arguments, and countering more innovative ones to debunk ours. This is fine and dandy. The problem is that other narratives do not face this same test of rigour, leaving us at a considerable disadvantage. So this looks very useful - and in some ways is determined by the technology itself which is fairly decentred for users - and engagement will be great. However it cannot replace the need for deepening from our Third World perspective - for our own sakes, as well as noting that much of the progressives in the North (not for want of trying) are not up for the challenge to meet the protection of their own standards. So it is complicated... but great initiative, lets hope we all can play with you all... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue May 7 02:17:43 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:17:43 +0900 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [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> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:59 AM, McTim wrote: > > > 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. > What is a "single-rooter"? I know about alt roots (there were been discussions about on the list, intensely some years ago now I think.) Adam > >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 7 03:15:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 10:15:46 +0300 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [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> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5188AA22.4000308@gmail.com> There are many ways to answer this question. And is in a range. With lots of fudging... There is a the generous view McTim espoused recently. Then the apposite RPerry 'absurd and self-evident'. Then there is the experience of Auerbach, MM Ruling the Root, and of course 'if it aint broke don't fix it' to the 'you are crazy' - in historical time of this list. /This of course is not technical, but about how tendencies in 'groups' are projected/interpreted in the POLITICAL realm./ Technically we know there was monovalent position on CIR when as RP puts it was bivalent. We know the score :) For technical definitions I think KR and DR and perhaps Auerbach may be more up your alley, as I am not inclined to anachronistic views, and revisionism. Auerbach's Cave Bear may still be one of the best resources, if you are interested in a critical perspective. And as Norbert changed the tenor here, so will just let sleeping dogs lie regarding my personal experiences. But by the 1rooter debate precedent was set by this in the IGC and it is a flexibility I interpret to afford 'us' equal space to make claims in which we are able to define 'the terms of the terms' of engagement. A rather difficult and tedious process - intellectual diversity is certainly not the IGC's forte. There is /very little/ in common, despite what McTim suggests, in some of the positions too - although with a legitimate structure a single root would be less offensive (for instance MMs and McT's internationalisation are definitely not how I see it - to bring issues up to date the 'evolved 1 rooters' (and then some) and my kinda ilk). Political lines are drawn rather clearly. I can't make you feel good about your positions, nor can you about mine. That is just politics. Riaz On 2013/05/07 09:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > What is a "single-rooter"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue May 7 04:04:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:04:40 +0900 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation) In-Reply-To: <5188AA22.4000308@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> <5188AA22.4000308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks. Kind of helpful. One thing: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > There are many ways to answer this question. And is in a range. With lots of > fudging... > > There is a the generous view McTim espoused recently. Then the apposite > RPerry 'absurd and self-evident'. > > Then there is the experience of Auerbach, MM Ruling the Root, and of course > 'if it aint broke don't fix it' to the 'you are crazy' - in historical time > of this list. The list position, best I recall, has never been 'if it aint broke don't fix it'. Quite the opposite. Adam > This of course is not technical, but about how tendencies in > 'groups' are projected/interpreted in the POLITICAL realm. Technically we > know there was monovalent position on CIR when as RP puts it was bivalent. > We know the score :) > > For technical definitions I think KR and DR and perhaps Auerbach may be more > up your alley, as I am not inclined to anachronistic views, and revisionism. > Auerbach's Cave Bear may still be one of the best resources, if you are > interested in a critical perspective. And as Norbert changed the tenor here, > so will just let sleeping dogs lie regarding my personal experiences. > > But by the 1rooter debate precedent was set by this in the IGC and it is a > flexibility I interpret to afford 'us' equal space to make claims in which > we are able to define 'the terms of the terms' of engagement. A rather > difficult and tedious process - intellectual diversity is certainly not the > IGC's forte. > > There is very little in common, despite what McTim suggests, in some of the > positions too - although with a legitimate structure a single root would be > less offensive (for instance MMs and McT's internationalisation are > definitely not how I see it - to bring issues up to date the 'evolved 1 > rooters' (and then some) and my kinda ilk). > > Political lines are drawn rather clearly. I can't make you feel good about > your positions, nor can you about mine. That is just politics. > > Riaz > > > > > > > > On 2013/05/07 09:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > What is a "single-rooter"? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue May 7 07:05:00 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:00 +0200 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [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> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> <5188AA22.4000308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Diaz Why this mumbo-jumbo of "third world provincialism" I ask that because I hail from the provocative "third world" where people from the "first world" come to assassinate, maim and pilfer resources while enthrenching malfeasance to please their whims and calprices. I have finally descovered that this forum has become an arena where people lash out phrases at reckless abandon. Too bad Aaron On 5/7/13, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks. Kind of helpful. One thing: > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> There are many ways to answer this question. And is in a range. With lots >> of >> fudging... >> >> There is a the generous view McTim espoused recently. Then the apposite >> RPerry 'absurd and self-evident'. >> >> Then there is the experience of Auerbach, MM Ruling the Root, and of >> course >> 'if it aint broke don't fix it' to the 'you are crazy' - in historical >> time >> of this list. > > The list position, best I recall, has never been 'if it aint broke > don't fix it'. Quite the opposite. > > Adam > > > >> This of course is not technical, but about how tendencies in >> 'groups' are projected/interpreted in the POLITICAL realm. Technically we >> know there was monovalent position on CIR when as RP puts it was >> bivalent. >> We know the score :) >> >> For technical definitions I think KR and DR and perhaps Auerbach may be >> more >> up your alley, as I am not inclined to anachronistic views, and >> revisionism. >> Auerbach's Cave Bear may still be one of the best resources, if you are >> interested in a critical perspective. And as Norbert changed the tenor >> here, >> so will just let sleeping dogs lie regarding my personal experiences. >> >> But by the 1rooter debate precedent was set by this in the IGC and it is >> a >> flexibility I interpret to afford 'us' equal space to make claims in >> which >> we are able to define 'the terms of the terms' of engagement. A rather >> difficult and tedious process - intellectual diversity is certainly not >> the >> IGC's forte. >> >> There is very little in common, despite what McTim suggests, in some of >> the >> positions too - although with a legitimate structure a single root would >> be >> less offensive (for instance MMs and McT's internationalisation are >> definitely not how I see it - to bring issues up to date the 'evolved 1 >> rooters' (and then some) and my kinda ilk). >> >> Political lines are drawn rather clearly. I can't make you feel good >> about >> your positions, nor can you about mine. That is just politics. >> >> Riaz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2013/05/07 09:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> What is a "single-rooter"? >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 7 07:23:21 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:23:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good) In-Reply-To: <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130507012106.3db3d50c at quill.bollow.ch>, at 01:21:06 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >“The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be >multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.” Although Nitin used to consistently claim that because there was no "membership list" for the IGF it was not possible to conduct any votes. (I'm not even sure the MAG "does" voting, and even if they did, the MAG is not the IGF; it's the nearest we have to the IGF's Bureau, to use intergovernmental language - ie it's the programme committee). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 7 09:02:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:02:41 +0300 Subject: On talking about hypocrisy (was Re: [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> <01c801ce4a5f$7ebe1ca0$7c3a55e0$@gmail.com> <264BDDCB-8E46-4865-91DD-ECDFE45AF101@ella.com> <20130506183637.12850cd1@quill.bollow.ch> <5187F4C8.1070609@gmail.com> <5188AA22.4000308@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is not mumbo jumbo... merely pointing out the sameness of peculiarities we all bring to the table... On 7 May 2013 14:05, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Diaz > > Why this mumbo-jumbo of "third world provincialism" > > I ask that because I hail from the provocative "third world" where > people from the "first world" come to assassinate, maim and pilfer > resources while enthrenching malfeasance to please their whims and > calprices. > > I have finally descovered that this forum has become an arena where > people lash out phrases at reckless abandon. > > Too bad > > Aaron > > On 5/7/13, Adam Peake wrote: > > Thanks. Kind of helpful. One thing: > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > >> There are many ways to answer this question. And is in a range. With > lots > >> of > >> fudging... > >> > >> There is a the generous view McTim espoused recently. Then the apposite > >> RPerry 'absurd and self-evident'. > >> > >> Then there is the experience of Auerbach, MM Ruling the Root, and of > >> course > >> 'if it aint broke don't fix it' to the 'you are crazy' - in historical > >> time > >> of this list. > > > > The list position, best I recall, has never been 'if it aint broke > > don't fix it'. Quite the opposite. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> This of course is not technical, but about how tendencies in > >> 'groups' are projected/interpreted in the POLITICAL realm. Technically > we > >> know there was monovalent position on CIR when as RP puts it was > >> bivalent. > >> We know the score :) > >> > >> For technical definitions I think KR and DR and perhaps Auerbach may be > >> more > >> up your alley, as I am not inclined to anachronistic views, and > >> revisionism. > >> Auerbach's Cave Bear may still be one of the best resources, if you are > >> interested in a critical perspective. And as Norbert changed the tenor > >> here, > >> so will just let sleeping dogs lie regarding my personal experiences. > >> > >> But by the 1rooter debate precedent was set by this in the IGC and it is > >> a > >> flexibility I interpret to afford 'us' equal space to make claims in > >> which > >> we are able to define 'the terms of the terms' of engagement. A rather > >> difficult and tedious process - intellectual diversity is certainly not > >> the > >> IGC's forte. > >> > >> There is very little in common, despite what McTim suggests, in some of > >> the > >> positions too - although with a legitimate structure a single root would > >> be > >> less offensive (for instance MMs and McT's internationalisation are > >> definitely not how I see it - to bring issues up to date the 'evolved 1 > >> rooters' (and then some) and my kinda ilk). > >> > >> Political lines are drawn rather clearly. I can't make you feel good > >> about > >> your positions, nor can you about mine. That is just politics. > >> > >> Riaz > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2013/05/07 09:17 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> What is a "single-rooter"? > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist-OutCome Mapper > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 7 13:45:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 19:45:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote on Mon, 29 Apr 2013: > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific guidelines / > methodologies to assess the impact of Internet-related policies > (which I define on the fly as "policies (including regulation, soft > law, research activities) which either impact on, or are impacted by, > the Internet). Sorry that I'm only now getting around to responding to the very important and interesting questions that you're raising... hopefully I'm not too late and the topic is still of interest, > Questions that come to my mind: > > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure to > justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of > policies on it, and its impact on policies? I would respond to this question with a clear yes, but more importantly, it is becoming increasingly impossible to separate the Internet, and what it enables, from what used to be the offline world but isn't so offline anymore. I would argue that this causes significant aspects of the traditional ways of thinking about public policy and about the corresponding legal frameworks to be not suitable for todays's world. Many if the underlying heuristics and assumptions are not valid anymore. > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? No... those methodologies may be less badly outdated than what experts on legal systems (the lawyers) learn during their studies, but the world is changing so quickly nowadays that all existing methodologies are already outdated by the time that they're recognized as “existing methodologies”. What we now need is analytical methods that are updated, through an appropriate multistakeholder process, in real time, as the world is changing. > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the > impact of Internet-related policies? The same kind of questions that have always been appropriate to ask for proposals of any kind: What is the intended effect? What is the cost? How likely is it that the intended effect will be achieved? What are the risks in regard to negative side-effects? How can those risks be managed or mitigated? What is the potential cost of mitigation measures that may be needed? What negative side-effects are likely to remain after any mitigation measures? Is, in view of all of the risks and costs, the proposed measure worthwhile? > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) > should one consider when performing such impact assessment? I find the "logical thinking process" tools of Goldratt's Theory of Constraints to be highly helpful for all kinds of analysis and deliberation in complex systemic contexts. See e.g.: H. William Dettmer: The Logical Thinking process. A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving. Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007 (Quality Press) ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5 On top of that I believe that we need an international multistakeholder process to develop more specific analysis methodologies, to keep them up to date, and to apply them to current policy challenges. That is a primary objective of the Wisdom Task Force proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org/RFB/1 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 soekpe at gmail.com Tue May 7 14:43:29 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 19:43:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 to Roland Perry. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 7, 2013 12:25 PM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message <20130507012106.3db3d50c@**quill.bollow.ch<20130507012106.3db3d50c at quill.bollow.ch>>, > at 01:21:06 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes > >> “The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be >> multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.” >> > > Although Nitin used to consistently claim that because there was no > "membership list" for the IGF it was not possible to conduct any votes. > > (I'm not even sure the MAG "does" voting, and even if they did, the MAG is > not the IGF; it's the nearest we have to the IGF's Bureau, to use > intergovernmental language - ie it's the programme committee). > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 7 14:47:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:47:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! At least 20 further volunteers are needed. Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue May 7 16:10:08 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1367957408.3887.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I volunteer for NomCom Appeals Team Shaila Rao Mistry   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! At least 20 further volunteers are needed. Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue May 7 16:13:57 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:13:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I volunteer to be included in the draw Deirdre On 7 May 2013 14:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list > who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom > (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, > Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). > > Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! > > At least 20 further volunteers are needed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Tue May 7 16:54:52 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:54:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1217072077-1367960089-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2122404421-@b4.c20.bise6.blackberry> Me anoto como voluntario. Atte. José Francisco Callo Romero Lima Perú Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar -----Original Message----- From: Deirdre Williams Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:13:57 To: ; Norbert Bollow Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal I volunteer to be included in the draw Deirdre On 7 May 2013 14:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list > who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom > (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, > Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). > > Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! > > At least 20 further volunteers are needed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Tue May 7 17:05:49 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:05:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <1217072077-1367960089-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2122404421-@b4.c20.bise6.blackberry> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> <1217072077-1367960089-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2122404421-@b4.c20.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Me too Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 07/05/2013, a las 15:54, jfcallo at ciencitec.com escribió: > Me anoto como voluntario. > Atte. > José Francisco Callo Romero > Lima Perú > Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar > From: Deirdre Williams > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:13:57 -0400 > To: ; Norbert Bollow > ReplyTo: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal > > I volunteer to be included in the draw > Deirdre > > > On 7 May 2013 14:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Dear all >> >> Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list >> who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom >> (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, >> Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). >> >> Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! >> >> At least 20 further volunteers are needed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: >> >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Tue May 7 20:43:34 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:43:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <026901ce4a6c$8822f9c0$9868ed40$@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> <026901ce4a6c$8822f9c0$9868ed40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51899FB6.7000703@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 For the avoidance of doubt: >>> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other >>> stakeholders' selection processes. relates to my bandwidth for this issue, rather than whether or not other groups should be transparent etc. There seem to be enough other civil society folks interested in pursuing it and by all means those who wish to pursue this issue should do so. Given the small number of civil society participants, my priority will be to focus on some of other substantive issues in the working group. Hence I am not interested in pursuing the specific issue of requests for publication of the other stakeholders' selection processes. Joy On 7/05/2013 3:15 a.m., michael gurstein wrote: >>> 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 > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRiZ+2AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqF/4IAKxPBbKOzWTMFgqJtdgidYHc wk/zFniUZ+R86n9RF+YsaIkEkpigf0qD6Dcys0JNV1rcQETSbJSHUlH65tL8AaQ/ KguOVVQyBwBtkZeh0ntcap2ZiR8iGMk8Y2FeW0vjhGd7vW6YCvC65dmIUL0nGpnd WbBDtzdKVly/vy9gFZ3Mpv7jE/1FsJl1lAlrHAVC65dbh2j0TXL4q+u/NWvimkzf YBtQYDHkMD97SP8PLCS7h1NlVuJK1kR0nvRh4Z99npOEs0g8R4lrQTnQfYghy2Wn pL6rL+ZbglE5yPPwUIaRqVXw9XCDczwtyE8M1MxOpTH7ssGmqQM/K91Zzf05x58= =7kLt -----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 aizu at anr.org Tue May 7 21:46:00 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:46:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> <1217072077-1367960089-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2122404421-@b4.c20.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: I also volunteer for the NomCom for Appeal Team selection. izumi 2013/5/8 Carlos Vera Quintana > Me too > > Carlos Vera > 0988141143 > > El 07/05/2013, a las 15:54, jfcallo at ciencitec.com escribió: > > Me anoto como voluntario. > Atte. > José Francisco Callo Romero > Lima Perú > Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar > ------------------------------ > *From: * Deirdre Williams > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Tue, 7 May 2013 16:13:57 -0400 > *To: *; Norbert Bollow > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> > *Subject: *Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal > > I volunteer to be included in the draw > Deirdre > > > On 7 May 2013 14:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Dear all >> >> Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list >> who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom >> (Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, >> Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). >> >> Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! >> >> At least 20 further volunteers are needed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: >> >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Tue May 7 21:58:52 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:58:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51899FB6.7000703@apc.org> 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> <026901ce4a6c$8822f9c0$9868ed40$@gmail.com> <51899FB6.7000703@apc.org> Message-ID: I also support Avri's comments on not going to other stakeholders areas, not because I support the Westphalian model, but more of practical ways to concentrate on the WG's business. Avri made clear that she will argue for the openness and most of us also do support that, period. If by some means the WG as a whole decides to close the door, unfortunately, then the choice for any member is to stay or leave the WG. I don't think walking out before the WG begins because of high principle and process problem is the most productive way to work in a quasi multi-stakeholder setup such as CSTD WG. I was also a member of CSTD WG for improvements of IGF where the rule of open/close or even the status of gov vs other stakeholder groups were not that clear, yet we worked together and came to consensus, maybe, of course that level of consensus is not satisfactory to every member of the WG as well as most stakeholder groups in their own light. As Parminder said in early posting, we can and should separate the simple statement asking for the openness of the WG meetings, and the selection process issue to advance. izumi 2013/5/8 joy > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > For the avoidance of doubt: > >>> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > >>> stakeholders' selection processes. > relates to my bandwidth for this issue, rather than whether or not > other groups should be transparent etc. There seem to be enough other > civil society folks interested in pursuing it and by all means those > who wish to pursue this issue should do so. Given the small number of > civil society participants, my priority will be to focus on some of > other substantive issues in the working group. Hence I am not > interested in pursuing the specific issue of requests for publication > of the other stakeholders' selection processes. > > > Joy > On 7/05/2013 3:15 a.m., michael gurstein wrote: > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRiZ+2AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqF/4IAKxPBbKOzWTMFgqJtdgidYHc > wk/zFniUZ+R86n9RF+YsaIkEkpigf0qD6Dcys0JNV1rcQETSbJSHUlH65tL8AaQ/ > KguOVVQyBwBtkZeh0ntcap2ZiR8iGMk8Y2FeW0vjhGd7vW6YCvC65dmIUL0nGpnd > WbBDtzdKVly/vy9gFZ3Mpv7jE/1FsJl1lAlrHAVC65dbh2j0TXL4q+u/NWvimkzf > YBtQYDHkMD97SP8PLCS7h1NlVuJK1kR0nvRh4Z99npOEs0g8R4lrQTnQfYghy2Wn > pL6rL+ZbglE5yPPwUIaRqVXw9XCDczwtyE8M1MxOpTH7ssGmqQM/K91Zzf05x58= > =7kLt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Tue May 7 23:16:34 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:16:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5189C392.7050204@communisphere.com> Thomas Lowenhaupt will serve on the Appeals Team if selected. On 5/2/2013 6:15 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 8 01:11:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:11:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings! We need 25 names before the draw can be initiated. As of today, here are the list of volunteers: 1. Chaitanya Dhareshwar; 2. Jeremy Malcolm; 3. Shaila Mistry; 4.Deirdre Williams; 5.J.F Callo; 6.Carlos Vera Quintana 7.Thomas Lowenhaupt Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed May 8 01:55:06 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 06:55:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51899FB6.7000703@apc.org> 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> <026901ce4a6c$8822f9c0$9868ed40$@gmail.com> <51899FB6.7000703@apc.org> Message-ID: I think Izumi made a very clear statement in the last paragraph; implying systematic pulling in. You resolve issues when you sit and share understanding with all and it sinks in them. I encourage all to participate and act with knowledge. Thank you, Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 8, 2013 1:43 AM, "joy" wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > For the avoidance of doubt: > >>> I am not interested in requests for publication of the other > >>> stakeholders' selection processes. > relates to my bandwidth for this issue, rather than whether or not > other groups should be transparent etc. There seem to be enough other > civil society folks interested in pursuing it and by all means those > who wish to pursue this issue should do so. Given the small number of > civil society participants, my priority will be to focus on some of > other substantive issues in the working group. Hence I am not > interested in pursuing the specific issue of requests for publication > of the other stakeholders' selection processes. > > > Joy > On 7/05/2013 3:15 a.m., michael gurstein wrote: > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRiZ+2AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqF/4IAKxPBbKOzWTMFgqJtdgidYHc > wk/zFniUZ+R86n9RF+YsaIkEkpigf0qD6Dcys0JNV1rcQETSbJSHUlH65tL8AaQ/ > KguOVVQyBwBtkZeh0ntcap2ZiR8iGMk8Y2FeW0vjhGd7vW6YCvC65dmIUL0nGpnd > WbBDtzdKVly/vy9gFZ3Mpv7jE/1FsJl1lAlrHAVC65dbh2j0TXL4q+u/NWvimkzf > YBtQYDHkMD97SP8PLCS7h1NlVuJK1kR0nvRh4Z99npOEs0g8R4lrQTnQfYghy2Wn > pL6rL+ZbglE5yPPwUIaRqVXw9XCDczwtyE8M1MxOpTH7ssGmqQM/K91Zzf05x58= > =7kLt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 8 01:59:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:59:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Revised list of Volunteers are as follows: Volunteers for the NomCom for the 2013 Appeals Team renewal =========================================================== 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar 2) Jeremy Malcolm 3) José Félix Arias Ynche 4) Kerry Brown 5) Avri Doria 6) Sarah Kiden 7) Shaila Mistry 8) José Francisco Callo Romero 9) Carlos Vera Quintana 10) Izumi AIZU 11) Adam Peake 12) Angela Daly For those who would like to volunteer please email: < coordinators at igcaucus.org>. The next update will be in the coming week. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings! We need 25 names before the draw can be initiated. > > As of today, here are the list of volunteers: > > 1. Chaitanya Dhareshwar; > 2. Jeremy Malcolm; > 3. Shaila Mistry; > 4.Deirdre Williams; > 5.J.F Callo; > 6.Carlos Vera Quintana > 7.Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 8 05:11:29 2013 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 10:11:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130507204712.5bb045a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1368004289.99664.YahooMailNeo@web172502.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I volunteer for NomCom Appeals Team. Vincent Solomon Aliama   “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 23:13 Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal I volunteer to be included in the draw Deirdre On 7 May 2013 14:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >Dear all > >Here's a quick status update: So far I have 5 volunteers on the list >who are willing to participate in the random draw for the NomCom >(Chaitanya Dhareshwar, Jeremy Malcolm, José Félix Arias Ynche, >Kerry Brown, Avri Doria). > >Sincere thanks to everyone who has volunteered already! > >At least 20 further volunteers are needed. > >Greetings, >Norbert > > > >Norbert Bollow wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013: > > >> 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 >> > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed May 8 05:23:50 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:23:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) Message-ID: <00d101ce4bcd$c0552ef0$40ff8cd0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CFP] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Third International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 In conjunction with the 39th international conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB 2013) Riva del Garda, Trento (Italy) - August 30th, 2013 http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2013/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- * About SIMPDA With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. This year the symposium will be inserted among the VLDB 2013 workshops and will feature a number presentations on recent research results and competitive PhD seminar. All this in the charming setting of Riva del Garda at the north-western corner of Lake Garda, at the southern edge of the Italian Alps, near the Dolomites. * Call for Papers The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from: http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume which will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for publication after a second round of review. * Topics - Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: - Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods - Data-aware and data-centric approaches - Variability and configuration of process models - Process Mining with Big Data - Process simulation and static analyses - Process data query languages - Process data mining - Privacy-aware process data mining - Process metadata and semantic reasoning - Process patterns and standards - Foundations of business process models - Resource management in business process execution - Process tracing and monitoring - Process change management and evolution - Business process lifecycle - Case studies and experience reports - Social process discovery - Crowdsourced process definition and discovery * Important Dates - Paper Submission: 10 June 2013. - Submission of PhD Presentations: 10 June 2013 - Notification of Acceptance: 10 July 2013 - Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 05 August 2013 * Workshop Format In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop: The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be prepared with particular care, making ready comments and suggestions. The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges during which every participant will be asked to assemble their thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc that they got out of the workshop. * Call for PhD Research Plans The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: * Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. * Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions. * Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). * Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. * Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. * Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. * SIMPDA PhD award A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research plan submitted. *Student Scholarships An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it * Organizers + Workshop Chairs - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Philippe Cudre-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland + Advisory Board - Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia - Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE - Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands + PhD. Award Committee - Gregorio Piccoli, Zucchetti spa, Italy - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE + Web Chair - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Venue The conference will take place in the Conference Center of Riva del Garda: More info on: http://www.vldb.org/2013/conference_venue.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed May 8 06:30:59 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:30:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Int. J. of Knowledge and Learning - Special Issue on: "Knowledge Acquisition, Reuse and Evaluation" Message-ID: <01ae01ce4bd7$21e68390$65b38ab0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] **************************************************************************** *********** Call for papers International Journal of Knowledge and Learning - Elsevier Special Issue on: "Knowledge Acquisition, Reuse and Evaluation" http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/cfp.php?id=2169 **************************************************************************** *********** Guest Editors: - Davy Monticolo, University of Lorraine, France - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy The advent of the age of digital information has raised the problem of knowledge acquisition, reuse and evaluation. This is today a dynamic research area constantly subject to adaption to new application requirements. Reuse and sharing of knowledge bases are major issues and no satisfactory solutions have as yet been agreed upon as knowledge acquisition still remains the bottleneck for building a knowledge-based system. Our ability to analyse, evaluate and assist users in reusing knowledge presents a great challenge for the coming years. A new generation of computational techniques and tools is required to support the acquisition, reuse and evaluation of useful knowledge from the rapidly growing volume of information. This call is aimed at collecting both theoretical and experimental results concerned with developing methods and systems that assist the knowledge management process and assessing the suitability of such methods. ** Subject Coverage ** Suitable topics include but are not limited to: - Tools and techniques for knowledge acquisition, knowledge updating and knowledge validation - Semantic web inference methodologies - Semantic knowledge portals - Web-based approaches for knowledge management - Agent-based approaches for knowledge management - Software agents for semantic web - Semantic web-based knowledge management - Tools, languages and techniques for semantic annotation - Semantic searching - Semantic brokering - CSCW and cooperative approaches for knowledge management 2 - Evaluation of knowledge acquisition techniques - Information and knowledge structures - Languages and frameworks for knowledge and knowledge modelling - Ontology creation, evolution, reconciliation and mediation - Ontology-based approaches for knowledge management - Knowledge delivery methods - Knowledge life cycle - Knowledge and information extraction and discovery techniques - Knowledge extraction from images/pictures - Intelligent knowledge-based systems - Decision support and expert systems ** Notes for Prospective Authors ** Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper). All papers are refereed through a peer review process. Abstracts should be submitted by email to the Guest Editors: Davy Monticolo: davy.monticolo at ensgsi.inpl-nancy.fr Paolo Ceravolo: paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please read our information on preparing and submitting articles. ** Important Dates ** - Abstract submission (by email): 20 May, 2013 - Full papers submission (online): 30 May, 2013 - Notification to authors: 30 July, 2013 - Final versions due: 15 September, 2013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 8 08:47:18 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:47:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good) In-Reply-To: <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130507012106.3db3d50c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130507012106.3db3d50c at quill.bollow.ch>, at 01:21:06 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >In ancient Athens, only a small minority was legally allowed to >participate in the democratic processes. That does not invalidate the >fact that the male citizens of Athens have made an important >contribution to the development of democracy. Same in the USA, where although all men were stated as being created equal, only the 15% who were white male property owners had the vote. (Although that changed over time). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed May 8 09:59:32 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:59:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Geneva Message-ID: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> Hi In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: The WSIS Forum 13-17 May @ ITU The WTPF 14-16 May, with a pre-event on the 13th @ the Conference Center* The GigaNet Workshop, "The Global Governance of the Internet: Intergovernmentalism, Multistakeholderism and Networks" at the Graduate Institute, 17-18 May [with wine festivals and other stuff in the region the weekend after] The IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting 21 to 23 May @ EBU [more wine festivals etc the weekend] The secret WGEC meeting 30 to 31 May @ the Palais [no festivals] The CSTD's 16th Session 03 to 07 June @ the Palais *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. Anyway, just wondering Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland www.williamdrake.org Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 8 10:25:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:55:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award References: Message-ID: <5FBC977D-6D73-4ECC-BD6E-DBEFAB2B02CD@hserus.net> As the moderator of a list that has been hosted on cpsr for over a decade ++, I mourn its passing. There are all too few credible and respected civil society groups, especially of such a high technical caliber and with a longstanding record of advocating ethics and privacy in computing. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Farber > Date: 8 May 2013 19:20:12 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andrew Russell > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 > Subject: CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award > To: David Farber > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Doug Schuler >> Subject: [cpsr-global] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >> Date: May 7, 2013 9:49:57 PM EDT >> To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org >> Reply-To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Dissolution and >> Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility >> >> >> It is my unenviable task to announce that Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), a non-profit educational corporation, has been dissolved. >> >> CPSR was launched in 1981 in Palo Alto, California, to question the computerization of war in the United States via the Strategic Computing Initiative to use artificial intelligence in war, and, soon after, the Strategic Defense Initiative — “Star Wars”. Over the years CPSR evolved into a “big tent” organization that addressed a variety of computer-related areas including workplace issues, privacy, participatory design, freedom of information, community networks, and many others. >> >> Now, of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations and movements that are concerned not only about the misuses of ICT by governments and corporations (and others) but also about trying to develop approaches that help communities work together to address issues related to economic and other inequalities and environmental degradation — as well as broader issues such as war and peace. >> >> CPSR to me provided a vital link to important ideas and to inspirational and creative people. These people believed that positive social change was possible and that the use of ICT could play a significant role. For example, in 1993, CPSR developed a document designed to help shape the National Information Infrastructure (NII) program promoted by the Clinton/Gore administration to help guide the evolution of networked digital communication. Through a variety of conferences, workshops and reports, CPSR encouraged conversations about computers and society that went beyond hyperbole and conventional wisdom. >> >> Although in many ways the issues that CPSR helped publicize have changed forms they generally still remain. The ethical and other issues surrounding the computerization of war, for one thing, have not gone away just because they’re not prominent on the public agenda. CPSR’s original focus on the use of artificial intelligence in “battle management” etc. and the possibility of launch on warning is probably still pertinent. The advent of ubiquitous and inexpensive drones definitely is. >> >> Apparently, as many people know, the age of the participatory membership organizations is over — their numbers are certainly way down — and we in CPSR had certainly noticed that trend. I personally suspect that this development is not necessarily a good thing. I certainly would welcome another membership organization with CPSR’s Big Tent orientation. >> >> On the occasion of CPSR’s dissolution we’ve developed two small projects for keeping CPSR’s spirit alive. >> >> The first is that it would be a good opportunity to catalog the groups and organizations around the world that would be natural allies to CPSR if it still existed. We’ve started this cataloging (see http://www.publicsphereproject.org/civic_organizations) but presumably have only captured a small fraction of these organizations. Please open an account on the Public Sphere Project site and add the information about your organization. >> >> The second is less concrete but probably no less important. To help the current and future generation of activists as we envision possible futures and interventions, we’d like to put these two related questions forward: What applications of ICT are the most important to human development and sustainability? And, on the other hand, What are the strongest challenges to these applications? Please email me your thoughts on this and I will do my best to compile the thoughts and make them public. >> >> ********* >> >> With this note I also want to announce that CPSR’s final Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility winner is Gary Chapman, who served as CPSR’s first executive director from 1985 to 1992. The award recognizes outstanding contributions for social responsibility in computing technology. Named for Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), who, in addition to a long and active scientific career that brought the word "cybernetics" (and, hence, cyberspace) into the language, was also a leader in assessing the social implications of computerization. Writing in Science (1960) Wiener reminds us that, “...even when the individual believes that science contributes to the human ends which he has at heart, his belief needs a continual scanning and re-evaluation which is only partly possible. For the individual scientist, even the partial appraisal of the liaison between the man and the historical process requires an imaginative forward glance at history which is difficult, exacting, and only limitedly achievable...We must always exert the full strength of our imagination.” >> >> Gary who died in 2010, spent nearly three decades working towards peace and social justice as it related to information technology. As Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) stated, Gary “made many people stop and ask hard questions about technology. Not just ‘Is it cool?’ but ‘Does it make our lives better, or more just? And does it make our world more secure?’ ” >> >> Gary’s technology column, "Digital Nation," was carried in over 200 newspapers and websites. He taught and lectured all over the world, most recently as a guest faculty member at the University of Porto in Porto, Portugal. Since his time at CPSR he had been involved in a multitude of related projects including the International School for Digital Transformation (ISDT) that he and others at the University of Texas convened annually in Porto, Portugal. >> >> Gary was on the faculty of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin. On the local level, he also worked to bridge the digital divide, the gulf between those with access to technology and those without. In 1995, for example, he worked on the successful grant application that led to the establishment of Austin Free-Net (www.austinfree.net), which installed the first public access Internet stations in Austin, and continues today as a national model for bringing digital opportunities to low-income and digitally challenged residents. And in 2010, Gary co-founded Big Gig Austin (www.biggigaustin.org), which anchored the successful community campaign to bring the Google gigabit fiber network to Austin. >> >> Gary was a principled and untiring advocate for the use of the Internet a tool for collaboration and other means to bring people together. Also, as a former medic with the Army Special Forces, Gary was especially concerned about the uses of computing in warfare. In his articles in the CPSR Newsletter, he warned that “Automating our ignorance of how to cope with war will produce only more disaster.” With David Bellin he co-edited “Computers in Battle: Will They Work?”, a book on the implications of computer technology in war, and was involved for many years in a rich collaboration with the Pugwash-USPID (Unione Scienziati Per Il Disarmo)-ISODARCO (International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts) community in Italy and elsewhere. >> >> Gary contributed chapters to several books that I was involved with. Most recently, he contributed The Good Life, one of the patterns (publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv) in Liberating Voices, a book that I wrote (with the help of 85 others). The verbiage from the pattern card abridged from the full text reminds us of Gary's humane values, and serves as an important challenge for all of us: >> >> People who hope for a better world feel the need for a shared vision of the "good life" that is flexible enough for innumerable individual circumstances but comprehensive enough to unite people in optimistic, deliberate, progressive social change. This shared vision of The Good Life should promote and sustain conviviality and solidarity among people, as well as feelings of individual effectiveness, self-worth and purpose. A shared vision of The Good Life is always adapting; it encompasses suffering, loss and conflict as well as pleasures, reverence and common goals of improvement. An emergent framework for the modern "good life" is based on some form of humanism, particularly pragmatic or civic humanism, with room for a spiritual dimension that does not seek domination. Finally, the environmental crises of the planet require a broad vision of a "good life" that can harmonize human aspirations with natural limits. All this needs to be an ongoing and open-ended "conversation," best suited to small geographic groups that can craft and then live an identity that reflects their vision of a "good life." >> >> Although this will be CPSR's final Weiner award, the work that Gary and other activists from CPSR and other organizations helped launch over two decades ago is now being carried forward by scores of organizations and thousands of activists all over the world, as digital information and communication systems have assumed such a central location on the world's stage. >> >> Several projects including a Festschrift or other book project or event related to CPSR and social responsibility have been discussed although no firm plans have been made. >> >> Gary Chapman was patient but persistent in his pursuit of progressive goals and a better life for all. Sadly, Gary left us before he could see his vision brought to fruition. He'll be missed but we all must push forward with his vision. >> >> >> ********* >> >> CPSR’s Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility Winners >> >> >> 2013 - Gary Chapman >> For his tireless efforts to promote human values within an increasingly computerized world. >> >> >> 1987 - David Parnas >> For his work to promote software reliability and his campaign to raise public awareness of the technical infeasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative. >> >> 1988 - Joe Weizenbaum >> For his work to promote the human side of his computing, as expressed in his book Computer Power and Human Reason. >> >> 1989 - Daniel D. McCracken >> For his work in the late 1960s to organize computer professionals against the deployment of ABM systems. >> >> 1990 - Kristen Nygaard >> For his pioneering work in Norway to develop "participatory design," which seeks the direct involvement of workers in the development of the computer-based tools they use. >> >> 1991 - Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould >> For their tireless energy to guide CPSR through its early years. >> >> 1992 - Barbara Simons >> For her work on human rights, military funding, and the U.C. Berkeley reentry program for women. >> >> 1993 - Institute for Global Communication >> For using network technology to empower previously disenfranchised individuals and groups working for progressive change. >> >> 1994 - Antonia Stone >> For her work in founding the Playing To Win organization, which has brought computer skills to many people who have long been technologically disadvantaged. >> >> 1995 - Tom Grundner >> For his pioneering work in establishing the Free Net movement, which has provided access to network technology to entire communities who would otherwise be unrepresented. >> >> 1996 - Phil Zimmermann >> Inventor of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). PGP allows the average person to encode his or her email. Previously, only governments or large corporations could make their email secure. >> >> 1997 - Peter Neumann >> Editor of the RISKS Digest, for his outstanding contributions to the field of Risk and Reliability in Computer Science. Read his Notes on Receiving CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >> >> 1998 - The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) >> A large open international community of individuals, engaged in the development of new Internet standard specifications, for its tremendously positive technical and other contributions to the evolution and smooth operation of the Internet. >> >> 1999 - The Free Software & Open Source Movements >> This movement profoundly challenges the belief that market mechanisms are always best-suited for unleashing technological innovation. This voluntary and collaborative model for software development is providing a true alternative to proprietary, closed software. >> >> 2000 - Marc Rotenberg >> For his ongoing efforts through CPSR and the Electronic Privacy Information Center to protect the loss of public's privacy through technological innovation. >> >> 2001 - Nira Schwartz and Theodore Postol >> For their courageous efforts to disclose misinformation and falsified test results of the proposed National Missile Defense system. >> >> 2002 - Karl Auerbach >> For pioneering democratic Internet governance. >> >> 2003 - Mitch Kapor >> For being a role model for anyone seeking to succeed in the cut-throat world of high tech business without sacrificing integrity and conscience. >> >> 2004 - Barry Steinhardt >> For being a prominent advocate for privacy and other civil liberties in the face of technologically-oriented threats. >> >> 2005 - Douglas Engelbart >> For being a pioneer of human-computer interface technology, inventor of the mouse, and social-impact visionary. >> >> 2008 - Bruce Schneier >> For his technical achievements and passionate advocacy for privacy, security, and civil liberties. >> >> >> >> Douglas Schuler >> douglas at publicsphereproject.org > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 8 11:15:17 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:15:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <51888615.3060301@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> <51888615.3060301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks for pigeonholing me into a hole of your own choosing. On 7 May 2013, at 00:41, parminder wrote: > This is one of the strongest statements i have ever heard in support of the Westphalian model of complete sovereignty . I did not know that you, Avri, were such a keen supporter of that model. i support extreme notions of grassroots-up subsidiarity: decentralize and make decisions at the lowest level they can be reasonably made at. And for better or worse, I accept that the world is currently organized into nation states that make sovereignty claims that the citizens seem to mostly accept. I might wish for it to be a more fluid bottom-up self-reorganizing set of structures, but that doesn't seem to be the reality I am stuck in. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 8 11:26:27 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:26:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] [] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award In-Reply-To: <5FBC977D-6D73-4ECC-BD6E-DBEFAB2B02CD@hserus.net> References: <5FBC977D-6D73-4ECC-BD6E-DBEFAB2B02CD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3AEE168A-48F4-4A70-A9A4-1825A55F8A98@acm.org> Hi, I join you in mourning its passing. CPSR was the first group I know of to really organize those working in the computer field along public interest lines. And while I am among those who let my membership lapse long ago, it was the first group of its sort that I joined and learned from. avri On 8 May 2013, at 10:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As the moderator of a list that has been hosted on cpsr for over a decade ++, I mourn its passing. > > There are all too few credible and respected civil society groups, especially of such a high technical caliber and with a longstanding record of advocating ethics and privacy in computing. > > --srs (iPad) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Dave Farber >> Date: 8 May 2013 19:20:12 IST >> To: "ip" >> Subject: [IP] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Andrew Russell >> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 >> Subject: CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >> To: David Farber >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Doug Schuler >>> Subject: [cpsr-global] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >>> Date: May 7, 2013 9:49:57 PM EDT >>> To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org >>> Reply-To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Dissolution and >>> Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility >>> >>> >>> It is my unenviable task to announce that Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), a non-profit educational corporation, has been dissolved. >>> >>> CPSR was launched in 1981 in Palo Alto, California, to question the computerization of war in the United States via the Strategic Computing Initiative to use artificial intelligence in war, and, soon after, the Strategic Defense Initiative — “Star Wars”. Over the years CPSR evolved into a “big tent” organization that addressed a variety of computer-related areas including workplace issues, privacy, participatory design, freedom of information, community networks, and many others. >>> >>> Now, of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations and movements that are concerned not only about the misuses of ICT by governments and corporations (and others) but also about trying to develop approaches that help communities work together to address issues related to economic and other inequalities and environmental degradation — as well as broader issues such as war and peace. >>> >>> CPSR to me provided a vital link to important ideas and to inspirational and creative people. These people believed that positive social change was possible and that the use of ICT could play a significant role. For example, in 1993, CPSR developed a document designed to help shape the National Information Infrastructure (NII) program promoted by the Clinton/Gore administration to help guide the evolution of networked digital communication. Through a variety of conferences, workshops and reports, CPSR encouraged conversations about computers and society that went beyond hyperbole and conventional wisdom. >>> >>> Although in many ways the issues that CPSR helped publicize have changed forms they generally still remain. The ethical and other issues surrounding the computerization of war, for one thing, have not gone away just because they’re not prominent on the public agenda. CPSR’s original focus on the use of artificial intelligence in “battle management” etc. and the possibility of launch on warning is probably still pertinent. The advent of ubiquitous and inexpensive drones definitely is. >>> >>> Apparently, as many people know, the age of the participatory membership organizations is over — their numbers are certainly way down — and we in CPSR had certainly noticed that trend. I personally suspect that this development is not necessarily a good thing. I certainly would welcome another membership organization with CPSR’s Big Tent orientation. >>> >>> On the occasion of CPSR’s dissolution we’ve developed two small projects for keeping CPSR’s spirit alive. >>> >>> The first is that it would be a good opportunity to catalog the groups and organizations around the world that would be natural allies to CPSR if it still existed. We’ve started this cataloging (see http://www.publicsphereproject.org/civic_organizations) but presumably have only captured a small fraction of these organizations. Please open an account on the Public Sphere Project site and add the information about your organization. >>> >>> The second is less concrete but probably no less important. To help the current and future generation of activists as we envision possible futures and interventions, we’d like to put these two related questions forward: What applications of ICT are the most important to human development and sustainability? And, on the other hand, What are the strongest challenges to these applications? Please email me your thoughts on this and I will do my best to compile the thoughts and make them public. >>> >>> ********* >>> >>> With this note I also want to announce that CPSR’s final Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility winner is Gary Chapman, who served as CPSR’s first executive director from 1985 to 1992. The award recognizes outstanding contributions for social responsibility in computing technology. Named for Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), who, in addition to a long and active scientific career that brought the word "cybernetics" (and, hence, cyberspace) into the language, was also a leader in assessing the social implications of computerization. Writing in Science (1960) Wiener reminds us that, “...even when the individual believes that science contributes to the human ends which he has at heart, his belief needs a continual scanning and re-evaluation which is only partly possible. For the individual scientist, even the partial appraisal of the liaison between the man and the historical process requires an imaginative forward glance at history which is difficult, exacting, and only limitedly achievable...We must always exert the full strength of our imagination.” >>> >>> Gary who died in 2010, spent nearly three decades working towards peace and social justice as it related to information technology. As Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) stated, Gary “made many people stop and ask hard questions about technology. Not just ‘Is it cool?’ but ‘Does it make our lives better, or more just? And does it make our world more secure?’ ” >>> >>> Gary’s technology column, "Digital Nation," was carried in over 200 newspapers and websites. He taught and lectured all over the world, most recently as a guest faculty member at the University of Porto in Porto, Portugal. Since his time at CPSR he had been involved in a multitude of related projects including the International School for Digital Transformation (ISDT) that he and others at the University of Texas convened annually in Porto, Portugal. >>> >>> Gary was on the faculty of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin. On the local level, he also worked to bridge the digital divide, the gulf between those with access to technology and those without. In 1995, for example, he worked on the successful grant application that led to the establishment of Austin Free-Net (www.austinfree.net), which installed the first public access Internet stations in Austin, and continues today as a national model for bringing digital opportunities to low-income and digitally challenged residents. And in 2010, Gary co-founded Big Gig Austin (www.biggigaustin.org), which anchored the successful community campaign to bring the Google gigabit fiber network to Austin. >>> >>> Gary was a principled and untiring advocate for the use of the Internet a tool for collaboration and other means to bring people together. Also, as a former medic with the Army Special Forces, Gary was especially concerned about the uses of computing in warfare. In his articles in the CPSR Newsletter, he warned that “Automating our ignorance of how to cope with war will produce only more disaster.” With David Bellin he co-edited “Computers in Battle: Will They Work?”, a book on the implications of computer technology in war, and was involved for many years in a rich collaboration with the Pugwash-USPID (Unione Scienziati Per Il Disarmo)-ISODARCO (International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts) community in Italy and elsewhere. >>> >>> Gary contributed chapters to several books that I was involved with. Most recently, he contributed The Good Life, one of the patterns (publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv) in Liberating Voices, a book that I wrote (with the help of 85 others). The verbiage from the pattern card abridged from the full text reminds us of Gary's humane values, and serves as an important challenge for all of us: >>> >>> People who hope for a better world feel the need for a shared vision of the "good life" that is flexible enough for innumerable individual circumstances but comprehensive enough to unite people in optimistic, deliberate, progressive social change. This shared vision of The Good Life should promote and sustain conviviality and solidarity among people, as well as feelings of individual effectiveness, self-worth and purpose. A shared vision of The Good Life is always adapting; it encompasses suffering, loss and conflict as well as pleasures, reverence and common goals of improvement. An emergent framework for the modern "good life" is based on some form of humanism, particularly pragmatic or civic humanism, with room for a spiritual dimension that does not seek domination. Finally, the environmental crises of the planet require a broad vision of a "good life" that can harmonize human aspirations with natural limits. All this needs to be an ongoing and open-ended "conversation," best suited to small geographic groups that can craft and then live an identity that reflects their vision of a "good life." >>> >>> Although this will be CPSR's final Weiner award, the work that Gary and other activists from CPSR and other organizations helped launch over two decades ago is now being carried forward by scores of organizations and thousands of activists all over the world, as digital information and communication systems have assumed such a central location on the world's stage. >>> >>> Several projects including a Festschrift or other book project or event related to CPSR and social responsibility have been discussed although no firm plans have been made. >>> >>> Gary Chapman was patient but persistent in his pursuit of progressive goals and a better life for all. Sadly, Gary left us before he could see his vision brought to fruition. He'll be missed but we all must push forward with his vision. >>> >>> >>> ********* >>> >>> CPSR’s Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility Winners >>> >>> >>> 2013 - Gary Chapman >>> For his tireless efforts to promote human values within an increasingly computerized world. >>> >>> >>> 1987 - David Parnas >>> For his work to promote software reliability and his campaign to raise public awareness of the technical infeasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative. >>> >>> 1988 - Joe Weizenbaum >>> For his work to promote the human side of his computing, as expressed in his book Computer Power and Human Reason. >>> >>> 1989 - Daniel D. McCracken >>> For his work in the late 1960s to organize computer professionals against the deployment of ABM systems. >>> >>> 1990 - Kristen Nygaard >>> For his pioneering work in Norway to develop "participatory design," which seeks the direct involvement of workers in the development of the computer-based tools they use. >>> >>> 1991 - Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould >>> For their tireless energy to guide CPSR through its early years. >>> >>> 1992 - Barbara Simons >>> For her work on human rights, military funding, and the U.C. Berkeley reentry program for women. >>> >>> 1993 - Institute for Global Communication >>> For using network technology to empower previously disenfranchised individuals and groups working for progressive change. >>> >>> 1994 - Antonia Stone >>> For her work in founding the Playing To Win organization, which has brought computer skills to many people who have long been technologically disadvantaged. >>> >>> 1995 - Tom Grundner >>> For his pioneering work in establishing the Free Net movement, which has provided access to network technology to entire communities who would otherwise be unrepresented. >>> >>> 1996 - Phil Zimmermann >>> Inventor of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). PGP allows the average person to encode his or her email. Previously, only governments or large corporations could make their email secure. >>> >>> 1997 - Peter Neumann >>> Editor of the RISKS Digest, for his outstanding contributions to the field of Risk and Reliability in Computer Science. Read his Notes on Receiving CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award >>> >>> 1998 - The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) >>> A large open international community of individuals, engaged in the development of new Internet standard specifications, for its tremendously positive technical and other contributions to the evolution and smooth operation of the Internet. >>> >>> 1999 - The Free Software & Open Source Movements >>> This movement profoundly challenges the belief that market mechanisms are always best-suited for unleashing technological innovation. This voluntary and collaborative model for software development is providing a true alternative to proprietary, closed software. >>> >>> 2000 - Marc Rotenberg >>> For his ongoing efforts through CPSR and the Electronic Privacy Information Center to protect the loss of public's privacy through technological innovation. >>> >>> 2001 - Nira Schwartz and Theodore Postol >>> For their courageous efforts to disclose misinformation and falsified test results of the proposed National Missile Defense system. >>> >>> 2002 - Karl Auerbach >>> For pioneering democratic Internet governance. >>> >>> 2003 - Mitch Kapor >>> For being a role model for anyone seeking to succeed in the cut-throat world of high tech business without sacrificing integrity and conscience. >>> >>> 2004 - Barry Steinhardt >>> For being a prominent advocate for privacy and other civil liberties in the face of technologically-oriented threats. >>> >>> 2005 - Douglas Engelbart >>> For being a pioneer of human-computer interface technology, inventor of the mouse, and social-impact visionary. >>> >>> 2008 - Bruce Schneier >>> For his technical achievements and passionate advocacy for privacy, security, and civil liberties. >>> >>> >>> >>> Douglas Schuler >>> douglas at publicsphereproject.org >> >> Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 8 21:13:56 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:13:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is putting one together for the WTPF, and I would support the caucus issuing one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF improvements. > *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but the ITU has refused to receive it. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 8 21:34:18 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:34:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] [] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award In-Reply-To: <3AEE168A-48F4-4A70-A9A4-1825A55F8A98@acm.org> References: <5FBC977D-6D73-4ECC-BD6E-DBEFAB2B02CD@hserus.net> <3AEE168A-48F4-4A70-A9A4-1825A55F8A98@acm.org> Message-ID: I also like to mourn, and I also became a member long ago, I guess it was in 1991 or so when Howard Rheingold brought me to the meeting in the SF Bay area. "Social responsibility" was beginning to be recognized in tech community around late 80's in my shallow memory, and CPSR is certainly one of these groups who pushed it a lot. In the age of social networking now, maybe the somewhat "closed" membership model may not draw the energy and interests of many, I am afraid. izumi 2013/5/9 Avri Doria > Hi, > > I join you in mourning its passing. CPSR was the first group I know of to > really organize those working in the computer field along public interest > lines. > > And while I am among those who let my membership lapse long ago, it was > the first group of its sort that I joined and learned from. > > avri > > > On 8 May 2013, at 10:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > As the moderator of a list that has been hosted on cpsr for over a > decade ++, I mourn its passing. > > > > There are all too few credible and respected civil society groups, > especially of such a high technical caliber and with a longstanding record > of advocating ethics and privacy in computing. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Dave Farber > >> Date: 8 May 2013 19:20:12 IST > >> To: "ip" > >> Subject: [IP] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's > Norbert Wiener Award > >> Reply-To: dave at farber.net > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Andrew Russell > >> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 > >> Subject: CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert > Wiener Award > >> To: David Farber > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Doug Schuler > >>> Subject: [cpsr-global] CPSR dissolution and Gary Chapman, Winner of > CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award > >>> Date: May 7, 2013 9:49:57 PM EDT > >>> To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Reply-To: cpsr-global at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> > >>> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Dissolution and > >>> Gary Chapman, Winner of CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award for Social and > Professional Responsibility > >>> > >>> > >>> It is my unenviable task to announce that Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility (CPSR), a non-profit educational corporation, has > been dissolved. > >>> > >>> CPSR was launched in 1981 in Palo Alto, California, to question the > computerization of war in the United States via the Strategic Computing > Initiative to use artificial intelligence in war, and, soon after, the > Strategic Defense Initiative — “Star Wars”. Over the years CPSR evolved > into a “big tent” organization that addressed a variety of computer-related > areas including workplace issues, privacy, participatory design, freedom of > information, community networks, and many others. > >>> > >>> Now, of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations > and movements that are concerned not only about the misuses of ICT by > governments and corporations (and others) but also about trying to develop > approaches that help communities work together to address issues related to > economic and other inequalities and environmental degradation — as well as > broader issues such as war and peace. > >>> > >>> CPSR to me provided a vital link to important ideas and to > inspirational and creative people. These people believed that positive > social change was possible and that the use of ICT could play a significant > role. For example, in 1993, CPSR developed a document designed to help > shape the National Information Infrastructure (NII) program promoted by the > Clinton/Gore administration to help guide the evolution of networked > digital communication. Through a variety of conferences, workshops and > reports, CPSR encouraged conversations about computers and society that > went beyond hyperbole and conventional wisdom. > >>> > >>> Although in many ways the issues that CPSR helped publicize have > changed forms they generally still remain. The ethical and other issues > surrounding the computerization of war, for one thing, have not gone away > just because they’re not prominent on the public agenda. CPSR’s original > focus on the use of artificial intelligence in “battle management” etc. and > the possibility of launch on warning is probably still pertinent. The > advent of ubiquitous and inexpensive drones definitely is. > >>> > >>> Apparently, as many people know, the age of the participatory > membership organizations is over — their numbers are certainly way down — > and we in CPSR had certainly noticed that trend. I personally suspect that > this development is not necessarily a good thing. I certainly would welcome > another membership organization with CPSR’s Big Tent orientation. > >>> > >>> On the occasion of CPSR’s dissolution we’ve developed two small > projects for keeping CPSR’s spirit alive. > >>> > >>> The first is that it would be a good opportunity to catalog the groups > and organizations around the world that would be natural allies to CPSR if > it still existed. We’ve started this cataloging (see > http://www.publicsphereproject.org/civic_organizations) but presumably > have only captured a small fraction of these organizations. Please open an > account on the Public Sphere Project site and add the information about > your organization. > >>> > >>> The second is less concrete but probably no less important. To help > the current and future generation of activists as we envision possible > futures and interventions, we’d like to put these two related questions > forward: What applications of ICT are the most important to human > development and sustainability? And, on the other hand, What are the > strongest challenges to these applications? Please email me your thoughts > on this and I will do my best to compile the thoughts and make them public. > >>> > >>> ********* > >>> > >>> With this note I also want to announce that CPSR’s final Norbert > Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility winner is Gary > Chapman, who served as CPSR’s first executive director from 1985 to 1992. > The award recognizes outstanding contributions for social responsibility in > computing technology. Named for Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), who, in > addition to a long and active scientific career that brought the word > "cybernetics" (and, hence, cyberspace) into the language, was also a leader > in assessing the social implications of computerization. Writing in Science > (1960) Wiener reminds us that, “...even when the individual believes that > science contributes to the human ends which he has at heart, his belief > needs a continual scanning and re-evaluation which is only partly possible. > For the individual scientist, even the partial appraisal of the liaison > between the man and the historical process requires an imaginative forward > glance at history which is difficult, exacting, and only limitedly > achievable...We must always exert the full strength of our imagination.” > >>> > >>> Gary who died in 2010, spent nearly three decades working towards > peace and social justice as it related to information technology. As Marc > Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) stated, > Gary “made many people stop and ask hard questions about technology. Not > just ‘Is it cool?’ but ‘Does it make our lives better, or more just? And > does it make our world more secure?’ ” > >>> > >>> Gary’s technology column, "Digital Nation," was carried in over 200 > newspapers and websites. He taught and lectured all over the world, most > recently as a guest faculty member at the University of Porto in Porto, > Portugal. Since his time at CPSR he had been involved in a multitude of > related projects including the International School for Digital > Transformation (ISDT) that he and others at the University of Texas > convened annually in Porto, Portugal. > >>> > >>> Gary was on the faculty of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public > Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin. On the local level, he also > worked to bridge the digital divide, the gulf between those with access to > technology and those without. In 1995, for example, he worked on the > successful grant application that led to the establishment of Austin > Free-Net (www.austinfree.net), which installed the first public access > Internet stations in Austin, and continues today as a national model for > bringing digital opportunities to low-income and digitally challenged > residents. And in 2010, Gary co-founded Big Gig Austin ( > www.biggigaustin.org), which anchored the successful community campaign > to bring the Google gigabit fiber network to Austin. > >>> > >>> Gary was a principled and untiring advocate for the use of the > Internet a tool for collaboration and other means to bring people together. > Also, as a former medic with the Army Special Forces, Gary was especially > concerned about the uses of computing in warfare. In his articles in the > CPSR Newsletter, he warned that “Automating our ignorance of how to cope > with war will produce only more disaster.” With David Bellin he co-edited > “Computers in Battle: Will They Work?”, a book on the implications of > computer technology in war, and was involved for many years in a rich > collaboration with the Pugwash-USPID (Unione Scienziati Per Il > Disarmo)-ISODARCO (International School on Disarmament and Research on > Conflicts) community in Italy and elsewhere. > >>> > >>> Gary contributed chapters to several books that I was involved with. > Most recently, he contributed The Good Life, one of the patterns ( > publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv) in Liberating Voices, a book that I > wrote (with the help of 85 others). The verbiage from the pattern card > abridged from the full text reminds us of Gary's humane values, and serves > as an important challenge for all of us: > >>> > >>> People who hope for a better world feel the need for a shared vision > of the "good life" that is flexible enough for innumerable individual > circumstances but comprehensive enough to unite people in optimistic, > deliberate, progressive social change. This shared vision of The Good Life > should promote and sustain conviviality and solidarity among people, as > well as feelings of individual effectiveness, self-worth and purpose. A > shared vision of The Good Life is always adapting; it encompasses > suffering, loss and conflict as well as pleasures, reverence and common > goals of improvement. An emergent framework for the modern "good life" is > based on some form of humanism, particularly pragmatic or civic humanism, > with room for a spiritual dimension that does not seek domination. Finally, > the environmental crises of the planet require a broad vision of a "good > life" that can harmonize human aspirations with natural limits. All this > needs to be an ongoing and open-ended "conversation," best suited to small > geographic groups that can craft and then live an identity that reflects > their vision of a "good life." > >>> > >>> Although this will be CPSR's final Weiner award, the work that Gary > and other activists from CPSR and other organizations helped launch over > two decades ago is now being carried forward by scores of organizations and > thousands of activists all over the world, as digital information and > communication systems have assumed such a central location on the world's > stage. > >>> > >>> Several projects including a Festschrift or other book project or > event related to CPSR and social responsibility have been discussed > although no firm plans have been made. > >>> > >>> Gary Chapman was patient but persistent in his pursuit of progressive > goals and a better life for all. Sadly, Gary left us before he could see > his vision brought to fruition. He'll be missed but we all must push > forward with his vision. > >>> > >>> > >>> ********* > >>> > >>> CPSR’s Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility > Winners > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013 - Gary Chapman > >>> For his tireless efforts to promote human values within an > increasingly computerized world. > >>> > >>> > >>> 1987 - David Parnas > >>> For his work to promote software reliability and his campaign to raise > public awareness of the technical infeasibility of the Strategic Defense > Initiative. > >>> > >>> 1988 - Joe Weizenbaum > >>> For his work to promote the human side of his computing, as expressed > in his book Computer Power and Human Reason. > >>> > >>> 1989 - Daniel D. McCracken > >>> For his work in the late 1960s to organize computer professionals > against the deployment of ABM systems. > >>> > >>> 1990 - Kristen Nygaard > >>> For his pioneering work in Norway to develop "participatory design," > which seeks the direct involvement of workers in the development of the > computer-based tools they use. > >>> > >>> 1991 - Severo Ornstein and Laura Gould > >>> For their tireless energy to guide CPSR through its early years. > >>> > >>> 1992 - Barbara Simons > >>> For her work on human rights, military funding, and the U.C. Berkeley > reentry program for women. > >>> > >>> 1993 - Institute for Global Communication > >>> For using network technology to empower previously disenfranchised > individuals and groups working for progressive change. > >>> > >>> 1994 - Antonia Stone > >>> For her work in founding the Playing To Win organization, which has > brought computer skills to many people who have long been technologically > disadvantaged. > >>> > >>> 1995 - Tom Grundner > >>> For his pioneering work in establishing the Free Net movement, which > has provided access to network technology to entire communities who would > otherwise be unrepresented. > >>> > >>> 1996 - Phil Zimmermann > >>> Inventor of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). PGP allows the average person > to encode his or her email. Previously, only governments or large > corporations could make their email secure. > >>> > >>> 1997 - Peter Neumann > >>> Editor of the RISKS Digest, for his outstanding contributions to the > field of Risk and Reliability in Computer Science. Read his Notes on > Receiving CPSR's Norbert Wiener Award > >>> > >>> 1998 - The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > >>> A large open international community of individuals, engaged in the > development of new Internet standard specifications, for its tremendously > positive technical and other contributions to the evolution and smooth > operation of the Internet. > >>> > >>> 1999 - The Free Software & Open Source Movements > >>> This movement profoundly challenges the belief that market mechanisms > are always best-suited for unleashing technological innovation. This > voluntary and collaborative model for software development is providing a > true alternative to proprietary, closed software. > >>> > >>> 2000 - Marc Rotenberg > >>> For his ongoing efforts through CPSR and the Electronic Privacy > Information Center to protect the loss of public's privacy through > technological innovation. > >>> > >>> 2001 - Nira Schwartz and Theodore Postol > >>> For their courageous efforts to disclose misinformation and falsified > test results of the proposed National Missile Defense system. > >>> > >>> 2002 - Karl Auerbach > >>> For pioneering democratic Internet governance. > >>> > >>> 2003 - Mitch Kapor > >>> For being a role model for anyone seeking to succeed in the cut-throat > world of high tech business without sacrificing integrity and conscience. > >>> > >>> 2004 - Barry Steinhardt > >>> For being a prominent advocate for privacy and other civil liberties > in the face of technologically-oriented threats. > >>> > >>> 2005 - Douglas Engelbart > >>> For being a pioneer of human-computer interface technology, inventor > of the mouse, and social-impact visionary. > >>> > >>> 2008 - Bruce Schneier > >>> For his technical achievements and passionate advocacy for privacy, > security, and civil liberties. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Douglas Schuler > >>> douglas at publicsphereproject.org > >> > >> Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 8 21:36:00 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:36:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Workshop proposals final check In-Reply-To: <43AA2241-1D6A-4920-A763-C4F35B12F52F@unog.ch> References: <43AA2241-1D6A-4920-A763-C4F35B12F52F@unog.ch> Message-ID: You may be already aware of, but here is what was sent to IGF MAG members about the workshop proposal status. Please check it if you have submitted and make sure yours is there. If not, contact the Secretariat, please. izumi --------------- The Secretariat received 146 workshop proposals. They can be viewed on the IGF website at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/view-proposals We kindly ask that workshop proponents check to see that all their submitted proposals are listed on this page and inform us by 3 pm Thursday 9 May, Geneva time (UTC+2). If it is not they should include the date and time they think they did submit the proposal (i.e. press the submit button) and also the confirmation email if they received one. This is just a check to make sure no claims will be made after the assessment process begins. I would be grateful if you could please inform your respective constituents. The Secretariat will then sent out the assent link information on Friday. best regards Chengetai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 8 21:46:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:16:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Expensive even if you stay across the border in ferney? Prices there seem to be a fraction of what they are in gva proper. And no end of hole in the wall auberges .. --srs (iPad) On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: > > I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is putting one together for the WTPF, and I would support the caucus issuing one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF improvements. > >> *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. > > You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but the ITU has refused to receive it. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 9 03:05:46 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 19:05:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WSIS Forum 2013 Remote Participation Training-thursday 2nd May References: Message-ID: Apologies for cross posting. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: "Purcell, Fuatai" > Date: May 9, 2013, 2:10:25 PM GMT+12:00 > To: "Aslam (aslam at pirrc.org)" , "Prasad, Reshmi" , "'pita at connect.com.fj'" , Laeimau Oketevi Tanuvasa , "Douglas Creevey (dcreevey at blueskysamoa.com)" , Christian Fruean , "Ronnie Aiolupotea (ronnie.aiolupotea at mcit.gov.ws)" , "Jolden J. Johnnyboy [transcom at mail.fm]" , John Crook , John Crook , "Teakai Tune (teakai.tune at mcttd.gov.ki)" , 'Francis Lomo' , "'kora_nou at pm.gov.pg'" , "'Tepau Paape [paapets at yahoo.com.au]'" , "'Tepaukie Sotaga [tsotaga at gov.tv]'" , 'Mark Deorio' , "'Feleti Tu'ihalamaka [ftuihalamaka at mic.gov.to]'" , "'criden.appi at naurugov.nr [criden.appi at naurugov.nr]'" , 'Shivnesh Prasad' , "'Shivnesh R. Prasad [sprasad016 at govnet.gov.fj]'" , "pua at pmoffice.gov.ck" , tuli heka , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com]" , "Sharon Aiafi (sharon at mfat.gov.ws)" , 'Nina Hekau' , "zinnia.dawidi.iduhu at hotmail.com" , "Phil Philippo" , "'blanche_vitata at justice.gov.pg'" , "Ian G Mileng (mileng at nicta.gov.pg)" , "Ian Thomson (ithomson.nz at gmail.com)" , "'osimati at gov.tv'" , "'Tanielu D. Aiafi'" , 'Tanielu Aiafi' , "Lizzie Marguerite Taura" , "'Lloyd Fikiasi (lloydfikiasi at trr.vu)'" , "'Ronald Box [ronbox47 at gmail.com]'" , 'Ronald Box' , "'marianneberukilukilu at trr.vu'" , "ronaldbox at trr.vu" > Cc: "Scott Hook [scotth at forumsec.org.fj]" , "lindak at forumsec.org.fj" > Subject: FW: WSIS Forum 2013 Remote Participation Training-thursday 2nd May > > Dear Friends, > It was great to see most of you all last month in Samoa but I had so little time to spend with you but I do hope you enjoyed your time in Samoa and learnt heaps. I only wished I could have stayed the whole week. Today, I just got back home as I went directly to Turin Italy for another meeting – while its great to be home, I miss Samoa and the Pacific much. > > Please see email below if you wish to participate at the training session for remote participation to the WSIS follow conference next week. I am organizing 2 sessions. One is for emergency communications 9-11am on Tuesday 14 March and another one for e-waste 12-16pm same day. The link below is the agenda for the whole week. You pick and choose the topic you want to attend remotely. > > My apologies for cross posting! Can someone post the email below to picisoc? And share also with those whom you wish to participate remotely as there are so many topics and so many speakers – we may learn a thing or two. > > I am planning a pre-conference for SIDS next year in Sept 2014 for the Third conference of SID to be held in Samoa. If you are interested in attending please do send me the key issues as small islands that you wish to include in the this pre-event, also if you wish your Minister to be a speaker etc. and whether you wish to have a session during the pre-event. > > Take care and do not hesitate to contact me should you need anything else that is ITU related. > > Regards > Gisa > > Mrs. Gisa Fuatai Purcell > Head, LSE Division > BDT / PKM > e-mail : Fuatai.Purcell at itu.int > Phone : +41 22 730 6132 > > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > CH-1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > Telephone : +41 22 730 5111 > Telefax GR3 : +41 22 733 7256 > GR4 : +41 22 730 6500 > itumail at itu.int > Web : www.itu.int > > > > From: ALTHAHER, Mohammad > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:01 PM > To: Remote Participation, ITU > Cc: Sah, Gitanjali; Ponder, Jaroslaw > Subject: RE: WSIS Forum 2013 Remote Participation Training-thursday 2nd May > > Dear WSIS Forum 2013 Workshop Organziers, > > Thank you for attending the training session on Remote Participation that took place on “Thursday 2 May, 2013”. Following the increasing demand for another information session, it is our pleasure to invite those who couldn’t make it to join the last training session before the Forum. This will also be an online session and we strongly advise you to attend and invite anyone who might be involved or interested in the Forum. > > Where? Click: http://itu.adobeconnect.com/rpduringwsis2013 and enter as a guest. > When? Thursday 9 May, 2013, at 15:00 (Geneva time) > > Please feel free to forward this invitation to your remote panelists so they are familiar with the necessary requirements. > > Warmest regards, > > > > Mohammad Althaher > Remote Participation Coordinator, Conference Technology Support Division > SG / IS / CTSD > e-mail : mohammad.althaher at itu.int > Phone : +41 22 730 5519 > Mobile : +41 79 8086062 > > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > CH-1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > Telephone : +41 22 730 5111 > Telefax GR3 : +41 22 733 7256 > GR4 : +41 22 730 6500 > itumail at itu.int > Web : www.itu.int > > From: Sah, Gitanjali > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:13 PM > To: Sah, Gitanjali > Cc: Garcia Aliaga, Marta; ALTHAHER, Mohammad > Subject: WSIS Forum 2013 Remote Participation Training-thursday 2nd May > > Dear WSIS Forum 2013 Workshop Organizers, > > Please note that since remote participation is an integral component of the WSIS Forum 2013, we will be having a Remote Participation training session for all the Organizers. > > This will allow you to facilitate remote participation during your sessions. Please confirm your participation and in case you have any remote panelists during your session please inform Remote Participation Team from the ITU at remote.participation at itu.int. > > Please find below instructions : > > Dear Workshop Organisers, > > It’s a pleasure for us to invite you to the informational session on Remote Participation during the WSIS Forum 2013 hosted by the Remote Participation Team. We strongly advise you to attend this online based meeting since e-Participation is one of ITU’s main features. > > > When? > - Thursday 2nd May, 10am (Geneva Time); > - Thursday 2nd May, 3pm (Geneva Time). > > Where? > - The link to the meeting room is the following: http://itu.adobeconnect.com/rpduringwsis2013 > - Please enter the meeting room as a guest indicating your name, last name and entity in brackets (as in the example below). > > > > > Don’t hesitate to contact us under remote.participation at itu.int if you have any further queries. > > With many thanks, > > Remote Participation Team > SG / IS / CTS > e-mail : remote.participation at itu.int > > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > CH-1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > > > > > Gitanjali SAH > Policy Analyst, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > 1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > Mob: +41 79 808 6076 > Tel.: + 41 22 730 6240 > Fax.: + 41 22 730 6453 > E-mail: Gitanjali.Sah at itu.int > Web: http://www.itu.int > http://www.wsis.org > http://www.wsis.org/forum > http://www.wsis.org/stocktaking > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5382 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5382 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 104890 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 22845 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 10550 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3117 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 nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 9 03:07:27 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:07:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> There is also Lausanne - 40 minutes by train, with trains very often into the night and from early morning - and also much less expensive than GVA. On 9 May 2013, at 03:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Expensive even if you stay across the border in ferney? Prices there seem to be a fraction of what they are in gva proper. And no end of hole in the wall auberges .. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: >> >> I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is putting one together for the WTPF, and I would support the caucus issuing one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF improvements. >> >>> *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. >> >> You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but the ITU has refused to receive it. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 9 03:21:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 00:21:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <20130509072149.GB1878@hserus.net> Nick Ashton-Hart [09/05/13 07:07 +0000]: >There is also Lausanne - 40 minutes by train, with trains very often into >the night and from early morning - and also much less expensive than GVA. except on weekends :) lausanne is beautiful though. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 9 03:23:12 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 16:23:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: During the busiest weeks there are few cities more expensive than Geneva. Can pick up a room in a village like Annecy, but for Geneva itself many hundreds if $$$. Terrible city for meetings. Very expensive and food as well. Adam On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > There is also Lausanne - 40 minutes by train, with trains very often into > the night and from early morning - and also much less expensive than GVA. > > On 9 May 2013, at 03:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Expensive even if you stay across the border in ferney? Prices there seem > to be a fraction of what they are in gva proper. And no end of hole in the > wall auberges .. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > > In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is > going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do > a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines > contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: > > > I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so > expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk > while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is > putting one together for the WTPF, and I would support the caucus issuing > one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been > discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF > improvements. > > *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and > note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. > Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus > would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: > on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one > would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting > Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. > > > You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil > society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society > submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement > is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). > I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at > http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but > the ITU has refused to receive it. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 9 03:39:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 13:09:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <7E4E890B-2348-431D-871D-6A8281BEBC51@hserus.net> Seems to me like if we have a civil society org (isoc? apc?) that can 1. Negotiate a discounted rate with one or two auberges 2. Make these rates available to civil society at large (such as say caucus members) It might be an idea. ITU does have negotiated rates with a wide variety of hotels in GVA and just outside, for hotels ranging from seven star to no-name auberge .. but these usually get filled up in no time at all. Maybe at an alternate location like Lausanne, Annecy etc to make it more feasible. --srs (iPad) On 09-May-2013, at 12:53, Adam Peake wrote: > During the busiest weeks there are few cities more expensive than > Geneva. Can pick up a room in a village like Annecy, but for Geneva > itself many hundreds if $$$. Terrible city for meetings. Very > expensive and food as well. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> There is also Lausanne - 40 minutes by train, with trains very often into >> the night and from early morning - and also much less expensive than GVA. >> >> On 9 May 2013, at 03:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Expensive even if you stay across the border in ferney? Prices there seem >> to be a fraction of what they are in gva proper. And no end of hole in the >> wall auberges .. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who is >> going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS meeting, maybe do >> a joint statement about something, and so on. Is anything along these lines >> contemplated for this year? We have stuff going on over a four week period: >> >> >> I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so >> expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk >> while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is >> putting one together for the WTPF, and I would support the caucus issuing >> one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been >> discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF >> improvements. >> >> *I was just looking at the documentation for the ITU's WTPF 14 to 16 May and >> note that there's only one civil society submission (from D. Brown, A. >> Doria, N. Nwakanma, M. Shears) and the ISOC submission. Probably the caucus >> would be unable to reach consensus on something related to Draft Opinion 6: >> on supporting operationalizing the enhanced cooperation process. But one >> would have thought that some comment on Draft Opinion 5: Supporting >> Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance might have been possible…. >> >> >> You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil >> society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society >> submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement >> is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). >> I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at >> http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but >> the ITU has refused to receive it. >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >> necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 9 04:40:22 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 08:40:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <20130509072149.GB1878@hserus.net> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> <100FCE8B-C56E-4B64-9097-B502BAF9C9C7@ciroap.org> <0000013e881db27d-2150240d-9ad2-45d4-b8dc-d0382186fca1-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130509072149.GB1878@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0000013e8872c229-31cdd92d-2d56-448f-8989-9bd36583a33e-000000@email.amazonses.com> Pretty frequently on weekends too really - we don't live in Geneva, and travel back and forth all the time for meetings etc as a result. It has never been a problem, even when I've come back from dinners after 11 at night. On 9 May 2013, at 09:21, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart [09/05/13 07:07 +0000]: >> There is also Lausanne - 40 minutes by train, with trains very often into >> the night and from early morning - and also much less expensive than GVA. > > except on weekends :) > > lausanne is beautiful though. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu May 9 05:12:54 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 02:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF information Message-ID: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all, 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG-  members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation or as stand alone experts.  I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups.  2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what we did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to start work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the content and outcome of the meeting. 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed from IEG.  Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" representation? 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype (there is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official remote participation channel 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa,  June 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home city. July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, hosted by Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. Best regards Nnenna   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu May 9 05:16:33 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (william.drake at uzh.ch) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 11:16:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Message-ID: Hi On May 9, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: During the busiest weeks there are few cities more expensive than Geneva. Can pick up a room in a village like Annecy, but for Geneva itself many hundreds if $$$.  Terrible city for meetings.  Very expensive and food as well. I'm just back from the grocery store so I can't argue.  But it's ok for governments that have Missions here, and of course that's what matters in a UN context…And per Nick and Suresh, there are some cost-cutting options like not staying in the center of town. On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk while I'm there.  Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is putting one together for the WTPF, Sure, but the more the merrier.  ITU staff and members have often cited the scarce responses in the few cases when they did do public comments as evidence that there's no real demand/need to  open up to civil society etc.  And a priori, one might think the caucus would want to respond to an intergovernmental statement on the conduct of multistakeholderism in Internet governance… BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, or just organizations with paid staff? and I would support the caucus issuing one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF improvements. Not so much momentum there.  But IGC has no updated views on the conduct of the preparations and program for Bali?  The preliminary proposal process, the proposal to significantly reduce the number of workshops beyond what IGC recommended in February, MAG renewal, etc? You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society submissions?  The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but the ITU has refused to receive it. Yes, and one would think this is precisely the sort of thing that civil society could usefully make some noise about.  There are other avenues than official submissions.  But if it's no longer possible to things like make statements, organize meetings, etc., ok... Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 9 05:36:27 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 11:36:27 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF information References: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331985@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Nnenna for pushing this further forward. I will be there from Monday to Friday as IEG Member. I will ask the German delegation (or EU) t help with a meeting room so that we can continue the "Dubai procedure". For me it is unclear whether non-sector members (including IEG members) have a right to speak. Anyhow, we should try to push that the "Deborah and Friends Paper" (DAFP) becomes part of the negotiations for the final version of the opinions. And thanks for the update for IGFs in Africa. The European IGF EURODIG is scheduled for June 29/21 in Lisbon/Portugal. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Nnenna Gesendet: Do 09.05.2013 11:12 An: IG Caucus Betreff: [governance] IGF information Dear all, 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG- members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation or as stand alone experts. I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups. 2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what we did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to start work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the content and outcome of the meeting. 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed from IEG. Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" representation? 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype (there is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official remote participation channel 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa, June 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home city. July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, hosted by Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. Best regards Nnenna Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu May 9 05:46:36 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 06:46:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF information In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331985@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331985@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, I agree with all the suggestions on your email. I'm register to participate at WSIS/WTPF, but I'm not part of the International Expert Group. And I will be glad to be posting feedbacks and exchanging ideas on a CS skype chat just like we managed during WCIT. best joana On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thanks Nnenna for pushing this further forward. > > I will be there from Monday to Friday as IEG Member. I will ask the German > delegation (or EU) t help with a meeting room so that we can continue the > "Dubai procedure". For me it is unclear whether non-sector members > (including IEG members) have a right to speak. Anyhow, we should try to > push that the "Deborah and Friends Paper" (DAFP) becomes part of the > negotiations for the final version of the opinions. > > And thanks for the update for IGFs in Africa. The European IGF EURODIG is > scheduled for June 29/21 in Lisbon/Portugal. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Nnenna > Gesendet: Do 09.05.2013 11:12 > An: IG Caucus > Betreff: [governance] IGF information > > > Dear all, > > > 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG- > members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation or as > stand alone experts. I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups. > > 2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what > we did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to start > work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the content and > outcome of the meeting. > 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed > from IEG. Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" > representation? > 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype > (there is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official > remote participation channel > 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa, June > 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home city. > July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, hosted by > Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 9 05:51:12 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 17:51:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so >>> expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other >>> caucus folk >>> while I'm there. Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is >>> putting one together for the WTPF, > > Sure, but the more the merrier. ITU staff and members have often > cited the scarce responses in the few cases when they did do public > comments as evidence that there's no real demand/need to open up to > civil society etc. And a priori, one might think the caucus would > want to respond to an intergovernmental statement on the conduct of > multistakeholderism in Internet governance… > > BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, or > just organizations with paid staff? Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. >>> You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only >>> one civil >>> society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society >>> submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears >>> statement >>> is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts >>> Group (IEG). >>> I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at >>> http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), >>> but >>> the ITU has refused to receive it. > > Yes, and one would think this is precisely the sort of thing that > civil society could usefully make some noise about. There are other > avenues than official submissions. But if it's no longer possible to > things like make statements, organize meetings, etc., ok... Yeah, the BB statement is actually focussed on this issue of transparency and inclusion. The IEG and CI statements are more about the substantive issues. In the absence of an official channel for statements, I'm just going to be wandering around the ITU with a sheaf of papers, looking for delegates to hand them to. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu May 9 07:50:30 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 13:50:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour a tous La République Démocratique du Congo organisera la 3 édition du forum sous régional de l’Afrique Centrale en Juillet 2013. Ce forum de 3 jours se déroulera vers la fin du mois de septembre. Les dates de l’évènement seront communiquées avant la fin du mois de mai. Juste avant le forum sous régional, la RDC organisera son forum national sur la gouvernance de l’Internet. Le comité d’organisation de ces évènements est placé sous l’autorité du Ministère des Postes, Télécommunications et Nouvelle Technologie de l’Information et de la Communication (PTNTIC). Hello everyone, The Democratic Republic of Congo will host third edition of IGF sub-regional forum of Central Africa in July 2013. This 3-day forum will be held in late September. The dates of the event will be announced before the end of May. Just before the sub-regional forum, the DRC will hold its National Forum on Internet Governance. The organizing committee of the event is placed under the authority of the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and New Information Technology and Communication SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net Le 7 mai 2013 13:01, a écrit : > Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to > africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 (Kossi Amessinou) > 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > (Dora Sende (COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE > L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:26:11 +0100 > From: Kossi Amessinou > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 > Message-ID: > < > CAHOT-HX_5GbJxO0e8_bSKYn_cCF+F6C3Yq5yA4dqJRidnOD7Vw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Bonsoir ? tous, > Je heureux pour ce message confortable pour l'organisation du WAIGF > 2013. Je suis en parfaite communion avec tous les coll?gues de l'IGF ? > Abidjan. > On reste en contact pour la suite! > > 2013/5/4, africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org >: > > Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to > > africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Mireille HOUNDJI) > > 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Pierre Chekem) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 10:41:48 +0000 (GMT) > > From: Mireille HOUNDJI > > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > Message-ID: <437955127.268.1367577708904.JavaMail.root at igici.ci> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:38:35 +0100 (BST) > > From: Pierre Chekem > > To: AfriCS-IG > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > Message-ID: > > <1367613515.50523.YahooMailClassic at web171604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Merci pour l'information. > > > > C'est une bonne nouvelle pour les acteurs du secteur en Afrique. > > > > Nous prions Nnenna d'informer les organisations de la Soci?t? civile sur > le > > meilleur > > moyen d'y contribuer. > > > > Bonne journ?e. > > > > Pierre Chekem > > Partnership Coordo > > tel(237) 77 77 99 62 > > www.partnershipcameroon.org > > > > ============================================== > > > > --- On Fri, 3/5/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: > > > > From: Mireille HOUNDJI > > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 13:41 > > > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > < > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130503/1d1e523a/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > > > > End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 > > *************************************** > > > > > -- > AMESSINOU Kossi > Ing?nieur des TIC > ICT Engineer > Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 > skype: amessinou > @amessinou @bigf > Que Dieu vous b?nisse > Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui ?tait et qui vient, pour la > gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 03:56:01 +0100 (BST) > From: "Dora Sende \(COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE > L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT" > To: AfriCS-IG > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > Message-ID: > <1367895361.80719.YahooMailClassic at web171803.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Bonjour tous,Merci pour cette importante information qui permet aux autres > pays de s'inspirer pour l'organisation de leur forum. Cependant Mireille, > donne nous toutes les informations possible permettant aux acteurs des > autres pays d'y assister, toutes les formalit?s possible ? faire. > > > COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION > DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT (COFEPRE) > 159,IMPASSE DES AVOCATS,RUE 172 > POBOX 462 > DOUALA/CAMEROUN > TEL FIXE 23733426381/33161920 > MOBILE 23799929240 > E-mail : cofepre at yahoo.fr > www.facebook.com/COFEPRE > DORA SENDE > PRESIDENTE > ASSOCIATIVEMENT VOTRE > > > > --- En date de?: Lun 6.5.13, Mawaki Chango a ?crit?: > > De: Mawaki Chango > Objet: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > ?: "AfriCS-IG" > Date: Lundi 6 mai 2013, 12h07 > > Mireille, > > Merci pour l'information. Priere de nous tenir inform?s ? mesure ques > les pr?paratifs avancent, en particulier sur les mesure en place pour > la participation des pays de la sous r?gion. > > Cordialement, > > Mawaki > > On 5/3/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130507/635ae941/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 9 10:24:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:24:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D21B17A-0950-4251-8712-82D723733451@acm.org> Hi, I will be in Geneva 13 May - 1 Jun for WTFP, WSIS+10, IGF and CSTD WGEC Since my office is wherever my laptop and I are, I decided that it was less expensive (dollars and carbon) for me to stay in the Geneva area as opposed to going home for 4 days only to return for another 2 days for WGEC. If there meetings, or whatever that are worth engaging in during the interim week, I will be around. > in February, MAG renewal, etc? >>> >>> You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil >>> society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society >>> submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement >>> is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). >>> I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at >>> http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but >>> the ITU has refused to receive it. > I am curious did anyone who applied from Civil Society for IEG get refused? I have not heard of any but want to make sure. As of now, I beleive the IEG program was an open opportunity - though the ability to speak etc as an IEG is limited. As others have said, though our contribution was published, IEG contributions can only be put forward for discussion by a delegation. Although I was on the IEG, I will be participating as a hybrid civil society type within the US delegation at the WTPF. avri PS. count me in for any group trips to wine festivals on the weekends. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 9 10:38:29 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 23:38:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: <5D21B17A-0950-4251-8712-82D723733451@acm.org> References: <5D21B17A-0950-4251-8712-82D723733451@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri, some comments below: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I will be in Geneva 13 May - 1 Jun for > WTFP, WSIS+10, IGF and CSTD WGEC > > Since my office is wherever my laptop and I are, I decided that it was less expensive (dollars and carbon) for me to stay in the Geneva area as opposed to going home for 4 days only to return for another 2 days for WGEC. > > If there meetings, or whatever that are worth engaging in during the interim week, I will be around. > >> in February, MAG renewal, etc? >>>> >>>> You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil >>>> society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society >>>> submissions? The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement >>>> is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG). >>>> I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at >>>> http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but >>>> the ITU has refused to receive it. >> > > I am curious did anyone who applied from Civil Society for IEG get refused? I have not heard of any but want to make sure. As of now, I beleive the IEG program was an open opportunity - though the ability to speak etc as an IEG is limited. As others have said, though our contribution was published, IEG contributions can only be put forward for discussion by a delegation. > I thought the IEG began as an invited group with limited slots for stakeholders and then somehow, and somewhat unclearly opened up. Good that it opened up, but not helpful not transparent. Do you know if the IEG contributions have been included (or will be included) in the document packs member state delegates receive? Contributions from non sector members in WCIT were not distributed (there were on the web, but there was no encouragement for delegations to use the contributions.) I'll perhaps see you for one day in Geneva, there for the evening of May 18. Adam > Although I was on the IEG, I will be participating as a hybrid civil society type within the US delegation at the WTPF. > > avri > > PS. count me in for any group trips to wine festivals on the weekends. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu May 9 11:13:05 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 11:13:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <5D21B17A-0950-4251-8712-82D723733451@acm.org> Message-ID: On 9 May 2013, at 10:38, Adam Peake wrote: > Do you know if the IEG contributions have been included (or will be > included) in the document packs member state delegates receive? > Contributions from non sector members in WCIT were not distributed > (there were on the web, but there was no encouragement for delegations > to use the contributions.) > Don't know. They are in a different section of the ITU doc site: Information instead of Official (where member, like governments, ISOC, RIPE, contributions go.) I epxect it will work like WCIT. If the IEGs want their documents read they have to peddle them to the delegations themselves. > I thought the IEG began as an invited group with limited slots for > stakeholders and then somehow, and somewhat unclearly opened up. > Good that it opened up, but not helpful not transparent. No not optimal, only baby steps in the right direction. Fortunately some noise was made about it when it opened up so some were able to apply. working with the ITU and a lot of these other organizations requires keeping careful watch for the opportunities to participate and then self-re-announcing it to civil society as best we can. I am sure I saw this opportunity writen of on the several CS lists including this one, several times. > I'll perhaps see you for one day in Geneva, there for the evening of May 18. will look forward to it. 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 andersj at elon.edu Thu May 9 11:51:07 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:51:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF information In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331985@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: All, Imagining the Internet will have a group of young people at WTPF/WSIS in Geneva Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday doing interviews for a video survey we will post here: http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org – you can also see our previous video event coverage and surveys at this site, for instance from IGF-Kenya - http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2011/default.xhtml The team will consist of students Julie Morse, Ryan Greene, Brian Mezerski and Joe Bruno, led by Elon University faculty member Brian Walsh. They hope to be able to visit with CS representatives as well as other people who will be participating in the events of WTPF and WSIS. They will be asking people five quick questions in order to get a wide range of opinions on access to knowledge and about current and looming issues and challenges and opportunities for the future. We hope you will stop and visit with them. Thank you to all in advance for taking the time to share your insights with these young people! Best regards, Janna -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor Elon University Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 5/9/13 5:36 AM, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > wrote: Thanks Nnenna for pushing this further forward. I will be there from Monday to Friday as IEG Member. I will ask the German delegation (or EU) t help with a meeting room so that we can continue the "Dubai procedure". For me it is unclear whether non-sector members (including IEG members) have a right to speak. Anyhow, we should try to push that the "Deborah and Friends Paper" (DAFP) becomes part of the negotiations for the final version of the opinions. And thanks for the update for IGFs in Africa. The European IGF EURODIG is scheduled for June 29/21 in Lisbon/Portugal. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Nnenna Gesendet: Do 09.05.2013 11:12 An: IG Caucus Betreff: [governance] IGF information Dear all, 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG- members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation or as stand alone experts. I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups. 2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what we did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to start work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the content and outcome of the meeting. 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed from IEG. Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" representation? 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype (there is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official remote participation channel 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa, June 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home city. July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, hosted by Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. Best regards Nnenna Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 9 21:43:02 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 21:43:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) Questionnaire References: Message-ID: FYI - the more answers, the better. Comment periods end 19 May. Pass it on. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] ATRT2 Questonnaire > Date: 9 May 2013 21:39:55 EDT > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Reply-To: Avri Doria > > Hi, > > The ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) Questionnaire - all million questions of it, is now online. > > Questionnaire online https://limesurvey.icann.org/index.php/survey/index/sid/377778/lang/en > the pdf of all questions is: http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.pdf > > All questions are already default answered - "No answer", > So nothing should block anyone from moving around the questionnaire and answering only those things you want to answer. > > The questionnaire will let you save and come back. > But if you let it time out, unsaved answers will be lost. > > As you leave a page by pressing 'next', an index entry will be made that allows you to go back to that page directly. > You will see those on the upper right of screen (I think - that is where they are on my screen)) > > Please - individuals, groups, caucuses, constituencies, stakeholder groups, the public - answer the questions. > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 9 22:40:27 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva In-Reply-To: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, or >> just organizations with paid staff? > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either (at > least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression came > across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ Full text is below: We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in particular freedom of expression. We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express their views, for example through an online platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables participation by all, including persons with disabilities. Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 10 03:52:23 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:52:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Corporate Fail: Disney's Attempt to Trademark Cultural Holiday Message-ID: <518CA737.9040200@gmail.com> [Preview of forthcoming attractions at the ICANN IPR desk? Methinks that unless thought is applied to this matter carefully ICANN will simply remake the mess that is cybersquating dispute resolution (which has come a long ways though) ....] Published on Thursday, May 9, 2013 by Common Dreams Corporate Fail: Disney's Attempt to Trademark Cultural Holiday Disney drops efforts to trademark 'Día de los Muertos' following online outrage - Andrea Germanos, staff writer Disney has dropped its effort to trademark 'Día de los Muertos,' a holiday celebrated in Mexico and around the world, following widespread outrage. Cartoon by Lalo Alcaraz/Pocho.com /Fronteras Desk/ reported that Disney filed 10 requests in the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office this month to coin the phrase. Disney's filings are mainly for merchandise, presumably connected to an upcoming film. The areas they are hoping to secure include "education and entertainment services," "fruit preserves; fruit-based snack foods," "toys, games and playthings," "clothing," "footwear," "backpacks," "clocks and jewelry" and more. Online outraged followed the news that the corporation would appropriate and profit from a cultural tradition. A Change.org petition launched following the announcement states: Dia de los Muertos is a religious observance during which Mexican people, and particularly native peoples, in Mexico, the United States, and abroad, honor ancestors and loved ones who have died. This important religious, spiritual, and cultural observance pre-dates the invasion of Mexico by the Spanish. We celebrate these sacred days and honor our deceased loved ones by making altars and placing offerings of food such as pan de muertos baked in shapes of skulls and figures, candles, incense, yellow marigolds known as cempaxochitl, and offering prayers and the smoke of copal. Disney's proposed trademarks would negatively affect the livelihood of bakers, the work of artists and craftspeople, and of writers and educators. Our spiritual traditions are for everyone, not for companies like Walt Disney to trademark and exploit. I am deeply offended and dismayed that a family-oriented company like Walt Disney would seek own the rights to something that is the rightful heritage of the people of Mexico. More reactions from Twitter: But just a week after submitting its trademark requests, Disney said it was dropping those efforts, stating: Disney's trademark filing was intended to protect any potential title for our film and related activities. It has since been determined that the title of the film will change, and therefore we are withdrawing our trademark filing. As On the Commons, a movement working for a commons-based society has documented , Disney has been 'raiding the commons' for decades, taking from the public domain but offering nothing back in return. ___________________________________ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: muertomouse.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 94752 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 Fri May 10 03:58:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:58:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Tangential_-_Transcribing_Bradley_M?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?anning=92s_Trial=3A_Group_Tries_to_Ensure_Transparency?= Message-ID: <518CA8B1.30503@gmail.com> The shocking treatment of Manning continues, and the trial is dogged with all sorts of basic rights problems... one would have thought that strict compliance with all laws would be the case, to ensure a prosecution... but with a judge already giving time off an potential sentence due to bad State behaviour, the matter is settled... forgetting that any "compensation" would have to be proportional to the acts and findings on the acts committed... seems like the 'court' has made up its mind if it can make such a ruling... such legal idiocy... can there ever be a fair trial for someone subject to torture or cruel inhumane and degrading punishment? What surprises me is that this is an American... *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* May 9, 2013 2:32 PM *CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) * Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 Transcribing Bradley Manning’s Trial: Group Tries to Ensure Transparency WASHINGTON - May 9 - TREVOR TIMM, trevor at pressfreedomfoundation.org , @TrevorTimm RAINEY REITMAN, rainey at pressfreedomfoundation.org , @RaineyReitman Timm is co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation ; Reitman is co-founder and chief operations officer of the organization. The group just released a statement about their campaign to ensure a transcript for the trial of Bradley Manning, scheduled to begin June 3: “As has been documented by many media organizations, the pre-trial hearings of Bradley Manning have been hampered by heavy-handed government secrecy. Government briefs are not released to the public, written rulings are rarely given to journalists, and most importantly, there is no official transcript of the proceedings. This has denied the public of opportunities for a range of accurate, timely, and in-depth reporting on the trial. “The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of a variety of news organizations and journalists seeking timely access to court documents, but the military court of appeals ruled in favor of continued secrecy. “As PBS recounted recently, ‘Because there is no official court record, the public is entirely dependent on the accounts of the reporters on-scene — the few who can fit into the courtroom making notes longhand, or the rest who report from the media center, typing down words and details frantically and hoping they don’t make any mistakes.’ “This campaign aims to fully fund a court stenographer, who will be credentialed with a media organization and attend the trial in the court’s media room. The court stenographer will produce a transcript of the trial, and as soon as the transcripts are available, the Freedom of the Press Foundation will post them online for journalists and the public. “‘Journalists covering Manning’s case face many Kafkaesque obstacles, but nothing is more punitive than the government’s refusal to provide a timely and accurate transcript. By funding a court stenographer, we hope to help journalists in their effort to report on the trial,’ said Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who serves on the board of directors of Freedom of the Press Foundation and attended Manning’s Article 32 hearing.” Reitman also just wrote the piece “SF Pride Board Denies Public Access to Public Hearing ” about SF Pride Board’s “recent decision to rescind Bradley Manning as a grand marshal from the upcoming parade.” ### A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10 04:38:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:38:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, > >> or just organizations with paid staff? > > > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression > > came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Full text is below: > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the > ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to > implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and > protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in > particular freedom of expression. > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These > begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key > internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; > the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of > transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to > address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move > forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring > to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF > facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and > authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring > all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the > national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for > civil society to express their views, for example through an online > platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through > speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as > providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the > WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. > We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these > policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve > the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public > interest and fundamental human rights. -- 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 10 04:46:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:46:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) Greetings, Norbert Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: > Hi, > > I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could > say something that like: > > " > The IGC is ...*. > The participants in the IGC support this petition. > > signed > {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational > participants} " > > Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. > > avri > > * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a > substantive issue? > > On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > > IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar > > to it? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. > >> > >> > >> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri May 10 04:49:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 20:49:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva In-Reply-To: <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Can you add multilingualism to the text? Otherwise the use of but not limited to, would cover it but think that it might be worthwhile mentioning it. Kind Regards, Sala On May 10, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: >>> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, or just organizations with paid staff? >> >> Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Full text is below: > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in particular freedom of expression. > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express their views, for example through an online platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 10 04:58:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:58:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] A Caucus/CS meeting in advance of the WGEC? (was Re: Geneva) In-Reply-To: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> References: <57A29205-A06A-4A97-A118-534D7D836564@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20130510105838.28e2df2c@quill.bollow.ch> William Drake wrote: > In years past it was the practice before the May meetings to ask who > is going to be in Geneva when, try to organize a caucus or CS > meeting, maybe do a joint statement about something, and so on. Is > anything along these lines contemplated for this year? We have stuff > going on over a four week period: > > The WSIS Forum 13-17 May @ ITU > The WTPF 14-16 May, with a pre-event on the 13th @ the Conference > Center* The GigaNet Workshop, "The Global Governance of the Internet: > Intergovernmentalism, Multistakeholderism and Networks" at the > Graduate Institute, 17-18 May [with wine festivals and other stuff in > the region the weekend after] > > The IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting 21 to 23 May @ EBU > [more wine festivals etc the weekend] > > The secret WGEC meeting 30 to 31 May @ the Palais > [no festivals] > > The CSTD's 16th Session 03 to 07 June @ the Palais In view of various constraints, the only time during this period at which I will available for organizing a Caucus or CS meeting in Geneva will be on May 30, say 10.00-12.00 or so. (The WGEC meets only in the afternoon of May 30 and then the whole day on May 31.) Is there interest in such a meeting at that time? Who would be there for it? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri May 10 05:08:26 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. If the "object to" is changed to "disagree with" I will sign. Best regards Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:38 AM Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF [with IGC coordinator hat on] Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, > >> or just organizations with paid staff? > > > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression > > came across).  Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Full text is below: > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the > ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to > implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and > protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in > particular freedom of expression. > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These > begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key > internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; > the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of > transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to > address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move > forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring > to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF > facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and > authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring > all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the > national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for > civil society to express their views, for example through an online > platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through > speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as > providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the > WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. > We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these > policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve > the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public > interest and fundamental human rights. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 10 05:12:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:12:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> On 10/05/13 17:08, Nnenna wrote: > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. > > If the "object to" is changed to "disagree with" > > I will sign. I'll put this to the drafters and let you know - and also Sala about her point. Ideally, we would have had a larger and more open drafting group, and it was only due to lack of time that we didn't, so I apologise for that. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri May 10 05:17:03 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1368177423.2120.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Hi Jeremy. Yeah, everyone is working under very tight deadlines these days.  Maybe my mail was too tight and too severe.  I should have started by: "The drafting team did a great job" bla bla.. But hey, over all, I agree with text.  Just that one word, which I think comes out very strongly and does not fit into the general spirit of MSP and negotiations. "disagree or strongly disagree" is a better term than "object". Thanks to BB drafters 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: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Statement on WTPF On 10/05/13 17:08, Nnenna wrote:  > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s >> framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. > >If the "object to" is changed to "disagree with" > >I will sign. > I'll put this to the drafters and let you know - and also Sala about her point.  Ideally, we would have had a larger and more open drafting group, and it was only due to lack of time that we didn't, so I apologise for that. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri May 10 07:19:29 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 07:19:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF Message-ID: <1bp65dm2b2x4pjbw7ycbeh2c.1368184769552@email.android.com> I'm fine with both edits -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement on WTPF On 10/05/13 17:08, Nnenna wrote:  > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. If the "object to" is changed to "disagree with" I will sign. I'll put this to the drafters and let you know - and also Sala about her point.  Ideally, we would have had a larger and more open drafting group, and it was only due to lack of time that we didn't, so I apologise for that. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 10 09:36:10 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 08:36:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I have signed (personally) because I will be offline/busy for the next couple of days. However, I strongly support Nnenna's request, and hope the change in wording is made.Tx. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 10 May 2013 04:12, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/05/13 17:08, Nnenna wrote: > > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. > > If the "object to" is changed to "disagree with" > > I will sign. > > > I'll put this to the drafters and let you know - and also Sala about her > point. Ideally, we would have had a larger and more open drafting group, > and it was only due to lack of time that we didn't, so I apologise for that. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 10 09:40:15 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 22:40:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? Message-ID: Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation. We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an unaccountable back-door. I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the practice is stopped. Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 10 09:49:29 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:49:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <1368176906.71799.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <518CB9F4.8000504@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <63DC7B3D-D8EF-483C-8017-8B8DD2E904ED@ciroap.org> On 10/05/2013, at 9:36 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I have signed (personally) because I will be offline/busy for the next couple of days. However, I strongly support Nnenna's request, and hope the change in wording is made.Tx. Ginger OK, nobody has objected (nor I think is likely to), so the amendment is made. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Fri May 10 09:54:01 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:54:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam Agree with you that, we people spend time to get proper representatives in forums. So this need to be verified that its true or not or another rumour in town. Before meeting. Keep us posted pl Sincerely On Friday, 10 May 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working > group on enhanced cooperation. > > We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and > others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an > unaccountable back-door. > > I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our > members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group > meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the > practice is stopped. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 10 10:42:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:42:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 22:40:15 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Adam Peake writes >Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working >group on enhanced cooperation. > >We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and >others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an >unaccountable back-door. > >I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our >members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group >meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the >practice is stopped. Be careful what you wish for. "Civil Society bans people who understand about the issues, from participating in CSTD working group" won't win many supporters. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 10 11:17:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 00:17:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did I say that? Suggest it even? Don't think so. Thanks, Adam On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 22:40:15 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Adam Peake writes > >> Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working >> group on enhanced cooperation. >> >> We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and >> others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an >> unaccountable back-door. >> >> I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our >> members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group >> meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the >> practice is stopped. > > > Be careful what you wish for. "Civil Society bans people who understand > about the issues, from participating in CSTD working group" won't win many > supporters. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri May 10 11:18:27 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:18:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <518D0FC3.40204@catherine-roy.net> FYI, the Chairs of the W3C HTML Working Group have announced their decision yesterday to publish the Encrypted Media Extension (EME) as First Public Working Draft[1]. What this basically means is that the EME spec is at the first step in the recommendation track though it may not make it to the end. Is also means that the process now calls for a review of the spec by the community and bugs can be filed in order to improve the spec or correct any errors. Formal objections may also be filed though I suspect these will likely come later in the process[2]. There is, as you all know, a lot of controversy around this extension specification but at this point, I doubt that will change the W3C's position on this issue as evidenced in their latest blog post on the matter[3]. It is useful to remember that HTML5, despite not being an official W3C Recommendation yet, is being widely deployed, or parts thereof. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0030.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr [3] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 10/05/2013 4:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? > > (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that > the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus > process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go > along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: > >> Hi, >> >> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >> say something that like: >> >> " >> The IGC is ...*. >> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >> >> signed >> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >> participants} " >> >> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >> >> avri >> >> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >> substantive issue? >> >> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>> to it? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri May 10 11:28:17 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:28:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> Hi, If I remember, Norbert mentioned he was going to be participating in that role. It was once in one note and no one commented. Had not thought of it as a trend, and I agree, in general it is a bad idea. But in this case, if it has already been done, and we have already implicitly accepted it by not objecting when an IGC co-co told us about it, I am not sure there is much we can, or should, do. avri On 10 May 2013, at 09:54, Kabani wrote: > Adam > > Agree with you that, we people spend time to get proper representatives in forums. > So this need to be verified that its true or not or another rumour in town. Before meeting. Keep us posted pl > > Sincerely > > On Friday, 10 May 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working > group on enhanced cooperation. > > We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and > others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an > unaccountable back-door. > > I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our > members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group > meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the > practice is stopped. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > -- > Sent from iPad > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri May 10 11:31:47 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:31:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, But, obviously, someone can read it like that. It is amazing the number of ways people can read things. cheers, avri On 10 May 2013, at 11:17, Adam Peake wrote: > Did I say that? Suggest it even? Don't think so. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message >> , at >> 22:40:15 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Adam Peake writes >> >>> Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working >>> group on enhanced cooperation. >>> >>> We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and >>> others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an >>> unaccountable back-door. >>> >>> I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our >>> members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group >>> meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the >>> practice is stopped. >> >> >> Be careful what you wish for. "Civil Society bans people who understand >> about the issues, from participating in CSTD working group" won't win many >> supporters. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10 12:06:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:06:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > If I remember, Norbert mentioned he was going to be participating in > that role. It was once in one note and no one commented. As a matter of fact, I did not use the word "advisor". What I have done is that I have asked about attending as an *observer*, on behalf of the IGC, and I have received a response indicating that that should be possible. In the meantime, I have booked tickets, and I will be in Geneva, and I'll report back to the IGC, either about how the door looks from the outside, or about the WG's discussions. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 10 12:28:28 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 01:28:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Norbert. I do remember you writing this. So there is still a rumor of "advisors". I for one would like to know rather than speculate. And would be best to find out before. Thanks, Adam On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> If I remember, Norbert mentioned he was going to be participating in >> that role. It was once in one note and no one commented. > > As a matter of fact, I did not use the word "advisor". > > What I have done is that I have asked about attending as an *observer*, > on behalf of the IGC, and I have received a response indicating that > that should be possible. In the meantime, I have booked tickets, and I > will be in Geneva, and I'll report back to the IGC, either about how > the door looks from the outside, or about the WG's discussions. > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 10 12:32:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:32:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130510183246.34018c62@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > So there is still a rumor of "advisors". I for one would like to know > rather than speculate. And would be best to find out before. +1 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 jean-marie.chenou at unil.ch Fri May 10 12:43:44 2013 From: jean-marie.chenou at unil.ch (Jean-Marie Chenou) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:43:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to a Workshop: Global Governance of the Internet, 17 - 18 May, Geneva Message-ID: Dear members of the IGC list, For those of you who will be in Geneva next week,please find below an invitation to the GigaNet workshop on Internet governance mentioned by Bill Drake in a previous e-mail, to be held on 17-18 May 2013. The first day might be of particular interest for the members of this list, as two multistakeholder round-tables will address the issues of the role of intergovernmental organizations in Internet governance and of the future of the multistakeholder model. With best regards, Jean-Marie Chenou Université de Lausanne To view this email as a web page, go here. INVITATION Public Workshop [image: LogoSmall-1 GigaNet] The Programme for the Study of International Governance, together with the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is pleased to invite you to a two day workshop on: THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET INTERGOVERNMENTALISM, MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM & NETWORKS Guest speakers include: Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Chair of the GigaNet Steering Committee David Sylvan Professor, International Relations / Political Science, Graduate Institute Ian Brown Associate Director, Cyber Security Centre and Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute In addition to representatives from UNESCO, the Council of Europe, International Chamber of Commerce, Consumers International, Internet Society, DiploFoundation, among other scholars and practitioners. Date: Friday 17 May 13:00 - 19:00 and Saturday 18 May 8:30 - 17:00 Venue: Auditorium Jacques Freymond (AJF), site Barton, 132 rue de Lausanne, 1202 Geneva For more information and for a full list of speakers and panelists please consult the full workshop agenda . Please registerfor this event . Contact: internationalgovernance at graduateinstitute.ch GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES PO BOX 136 - 1211 GENEVA 21 - SWITZERLAND - Tel. +41 22 908 57 00 - http://graduateinstitute.ch This email was sent to roxana.radu at graduateinstitute.ch. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. If you do not want to receive this newsletter, let us know. -- Roxana Radu PhD Candidate in International Relations/Political Science Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement Geneva - Switzerland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 10 13:14:45 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:14:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 00:17:40 on Sat, 11 May 2013, Adam Peake writes >Did I say that? Suggest it even? Don't think so. >> Be careful what you wish for. "Civil Society bans people who understand >> about the issues, from participating in CSTD working group" won't win many >> supporters. It seemed to me you weren't in favour of these advisors. Was I wrong? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri May 10 15:03:35 2013 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:03:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Teacher teasing 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi De, I believe that in Facebook all you need to do is go to the timeline and hit report/block. There's an onscreen instruction. I believe the terms of reporting someone is based on the following: - pretending to be someone else - using someone else's photo - list a fake name - fake account I doubt that the FBI has jurisdiction over a local school in St. Lucia since the FBI can only have authority on violations of US Laws in the US and its territories. I'm no expert on this but it just makes sense that it should consider only US violations, unless there are cases when there's consent from other countries. Charity Gamboa-Embley On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:48 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 > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sarabrynn at opentechinstitute.org Fri May 10 15:48:17 2013 From: sarabrynn at opentechinstitute.org (Sarabrynn Hudgins) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:48:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Government Blog Post Prior to WTPF Message-ID: Greetings all, For anyone interested in the following the WTPF process and particularly the U.S. government positions therein, the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. State Department have just published a blog post that’s now live on State’s Dipnote blogsite. It was co-authored by Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling and Deputy Assistant Secretary Danny Sepulveda. The direct link is as follows: http://blogs.state.gov/2013/05/article/building-consensus-support-global-inclusive-free-and-open-internet . Thank you, Sarabrynn Hudgins Program Associate Internet Freedom & Human Rights Program Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation (202) 596-3593 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri May 10 16:08:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 08:08:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [civic] WSIS Forum - Invitation to attend the C7 Workshop on enhancing strategies for e-agriculture/ Geneva References: Message-ID: <75880DED-97CB-400D-AB4C-4054B82B59D1@gmail.com> Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ken Lohento" > Date: May 10, 2013, 3:08:34 PM GMT+12:00 > To: "Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC)" > Subject: [civic] WSIS Forum - Invitation to attend the C7 Workshop on enhancing strategies for e-agriculture/ Geneva > Reply-To: "Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC)" > > Dear all > CTA and FAO are pleased to invite you to take part in this event if you are attending the WSIS Forum in Geneva next week. It will be held on Tuesday 14 May, from 9:00 to 10:45 in ITU Room A. If you are not in Geneva, you can also join us via remote participation. More information below and attached. Please share with people who might be interested. The link of this article on the e-agriculture website is http://tinyurl.com/eagric-session. > > PS: If you are attending the WSIS Forum and are interested in this session, please let me know by sending me a private email. > > Thank you, best regards > > Ken Lohento > ---- > > WSIS Forum 2013: the C7 Workshop on enhancing strategies for e-agriculture > > The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA) and the Food and Agri-culture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) are investigating the state of national and regional strategies for e-agriculture strategies, and their impact on how the entire sector can tap into the full benefits of ICT. The outcomes of these actions will serve as the starting point for the e-agriculture action line session at WSIS Forum 2013. > > Earlier this year, CTA prepared a background report on the general state of e-agriculture policies and strategies in selected ACP countries which aimed at providing a quick overview of the issue. The need of e-agriculture strategies and critical related is-sues were further discussed during a two week online discussion (http://bit.ly/10ODUPH) hosted by CTA on the e-Agriculture Community platform. In addition, an international workshop was orga-nized in the Netherlands, from 24 to 26 April (2013 ICT Observatory http://ict-observatory.cta.int) on the same subject. These activities were implemented with the collaboration of FAO and various partners including the UNECA, IICD, NEPAD Agency and some ACP ministries. > Panellists > > Ms Jennifer Britton, Caribbean Community (CARICOM ) Secretariat, Guyana > Mr Edward Addo-Dankwa, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana > Mr Ken Lohento, Technical Center for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) > Mr Harsha Liyanage, Sarvodaya-Fusion and eNovation4D, Sri Lanka > Mr Shahid Uddin Akbar, Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID) > Moderator > > Mr Michael Riggs, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) > This event will take place on Tuesday, 14 May, 09:00-10:45 (Central Europe Time). > > If you are attending WSIS Forum 2013 in Geneva, please join us in ITU room A. > > If you are not attending WSIS, please join us by remote particpation. You will be able to ask questions and make comments! > > http://www.e-agriculture.org/news/wsis-forum-2013-c7-workshop-enhancing-strategies-e-agriculture > > ----- > > Ken Lohento > ICT4D Programme Coordinator, CTA > > > > The following attachments were removed from this message and stored in the library: > > flyer e-agric session light.pdf (0.1MB) > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC). > > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC). > > Reply to sender | Unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6202 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: attachments-replaced-with-links.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From deborah at accessnow.org Fri May 10 16:45:25 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:45:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF information In-Reply-To: References: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331985@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, and all, I support your suggestions as well. I'd be happy to participate in a skype chat or any way to keep those following remotely connected to discussions. I can also reach out the Swedes again to see if they could request a room for civil society meetups as they did during WCIT, if that would be helpful. Best, Deborah On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Nnenna, > I agree with all the suggestions on your email. > I'm register to participate at WSIS/WTPF, but I'm not part of the > International Expert Group. And I will be glad to be posting feedbacks > and exchanging ideas on a CS skype chat just like we managed during WCIT. > best > joana > > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> Thanks Nnenna for pushing this further forward. >> >> I will be there from Monday to Friday as IEG Member. I will ask the >> German delegation (or EU) t help with a meeting room so that we can >> continue the "Dubai procedure". For me it is unclear whether non-sector >> members (including IEG members) have a right to speak. Anyhow, we should >> try to push that the "Deborah and Friends Paper" (DAFP) becomes part of the >> negotiations for the final version of the opinions. >> >> And thanks for the update for IGFs in Africa. The European IGF EURODIG is >> scheduled for June 29/21 in Lisbon/Portugal. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Nnenna >> Gesendet: Do 09.05.2013 11:12 >> An: IG Caucus >> Betreff: [governance] IGF information >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG- >> members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation or as >> stand alone experts. I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups. >> >> 2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what >> we did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to start >> work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the content and >> outcome of the meeting. >> 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed >> from IEG. Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" >> representation? >> 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype >> (there is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official >> remote participation channel >> 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa, >> June 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home >> city. July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, hosted >> by Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. >> >> Best regards >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants >> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development >> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org >> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri May 10 21:28:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 06:58:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Teacher teasing 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13e9134553f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Agreed that this does appear to violate facebook terms of use policy so that their compliance team would be justified in taking the account down. --srs (htc one x) On 11 May 2013 12:33:35 AM Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi De, > > I believe that in Facebook all you need to do is go to the timeline and hit > report/block. There's an onscreen instruction. I believe the terms of > reporting someone is based on the following: > > - pretending to be someone else > - using someone else's photo > - list a fake name > - fake account > > I doubt that the FBI has jurisdiction over a local school in St. Lucia > since the FBI can only have authority on violations of US Laws in the US > and its territories. I'm no expert on this but it just makes sense that it > should consider only US violations, unless there are cases when there's > consent from other countries. > > Charity Gamboa-Embley > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:48 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 > > > > > > -- > > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 10 23:36:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:06:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC support, which means IGC supports...... And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting something with no reference to IGC What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, build up a statement and say, "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this petition". My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of IGC... parminder > > (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that > the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus > process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go > along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: > >> Hi, >> >> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >> say something that like: >> >> " >> The IGC is ...*. >> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >> >> signed >> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >> participants} " >> >> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >> >> avri >> >> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >> substantive issue? >> >> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>> to it? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat May 11 00:02:58 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 13:02:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: First, use some boiler plate text to describe what the ICG is. (And do we have such text?) So readers know who the statement is coming from. Second, a simple statement "The participants in the IGC support this petition". Seems the idea is to keep it as simple as possible. Adam On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? > > > From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC > support this petition. " > > Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC > support, which means IGC supports...... > > And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned > participants in the IGC support the petition" > > I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is > supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting > something with no reference to IGC > > What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's > framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, > build up a statement and say, > > "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this > petition". > > My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of > IGC... > > parminder > > > >> >> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that >> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus >> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go >> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >>> say something that like: >>> >>> " >>> The IGC is ...*. >>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >>> >>> signed >>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >>> participants} " >>> >>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >>> substantive issue? >>> >>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>>> to it? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>>> >>> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat May 11 03:25:31 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <385953987.2035.1368257131889.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h23> + 1 Thanks Parminder JL Fullsack > Message du 11/05/13 05:37 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards > > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? > > From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in > the IGC support this petition. " > > Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC > support, which means IGC supports...... > > And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or > undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" > > I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC > is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting > something with no reference to IGC > > What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b > Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC > list, build up a statement and say, > > "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support > this petition". > > My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention > of IGC... > > parminder > > > > > > (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that > > the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus > > process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go > > along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could > >> say something that like: > >> > >> " > >> The IGC is ...*. > >> The participants in the IGC support this petition. > >> > >> signed > >> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational > >> participants} " > >> > >> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a > >> substantive issue? > >> > >> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > >>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar > >>> to it? > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 > >>>> > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 11 03:26:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:56:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> On Saturday 11 May 2013 09:32 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > First, use some boiler plate text to describe what the ICG is. (And do > we have such text?) So readers know who the statement is coming from. > > Second, a simple statement "The participants in the IGC support this > petition". Dont think Avri means IGC to support the statement..... she seems to say trying that kind of thing will get us into substantive discussion... I am happy to be told that I am wrong... I do support IGC endorsing the statement against the proposed W3C move to install DRM hooks in the basic web architecture.. parminder > > Seems the idea is to keep it as simple as possible. > > Adam > > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? >> >> From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC >> support this petition. " >> >> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC >> support, which means IGC supports...... >> >> And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned >> participants in the IGC support the petition" >> >> I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is >> supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting >> something with no reference to IGC >> >> What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's >> framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, >> build up a statement and say, >> >> "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this >> petition". >> >> My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of >> IGC... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that >>> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus >>> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go >>> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >>>> say something that like: >>>> >>>> " >>>> The IGC is ...*. >>>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >>>> >>>> signed >>>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >>>> participants} " >>>> >>>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >>>> substantive issue? >>>> >>>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>>>> to it? >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat May 11 06:10:40 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:10:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> Hi Norbert On May 10, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> If I remember, Norbert mentioned he was going to be participating in >> that role. It was once in one note and no one commented. > > As a matter of fact, I did not use the word "advisor". > > What I have done is that I have asked about attending as an *observer*, > on behalf of the IGC, and I have received a response indicating that > that should be possible. In the meantime, I have booked tickets, and I > will be in Geneva, and I'll report back to the IGC, either about how > the door looks from the outside, or about the WG's discussions. Glad you can observe on behalf of the rest of us alongside the folks we nominated to the WG, the more the merrier. But it'd also be nice if there was a letter to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable flood). Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups. Then he'd have something to reference when raising the issue with WG members—preferably in advance of the meeting. Any reason we can't do this? Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Sat May 11 06:08:21 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 22:08:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF information In-Reply-To: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1368090774.11415.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <518E1895.1010700@internetnz.net.nz> I am on the IEG, in Geneva for the week, and on the NZ Government delegation, and am happy to help out where and when I can. Cheers Keith Davidson On 9/05/2013 9:12 p.m., Nnenna wrote: > Dear all, > > 1. For WTPF, I cannot say how many International Expert Group - IEG- > members wll be physically present, eother as members of delegation > or as stand alone experts. I will suggest we still have CS meet-ups. > 2. It is possible to request a venue via a delegation, this is what we > did at WCIT but to do this, individuals with CS background need to > start work before arrival... not just on logistics, but on the > content and outcome of the meeting. > 3. I think Lea Kasper, Avri Doria, and Deborah Brown are confirmed from > IEG. Could others join forces for a better CS "Principles" > representation? > 4. I will not be physically present but will be online on Skype (there > is a stand by CS chat that goes on concurrently) and the official > remote participation channel > 5. For those who are interested in what is happening in Africa, June > 18 is Nigeria IGF. July 3 - 5 is West Africa IGF in Abidjan, my home > city. July 26 is Kenya IGF. September 11 - 13 is Second Africa IGF, > hosted by Government of Kenya and the Kenya ISOC. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 11 08:58:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 14:58:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20130511145837.32603854@quill.bollow.ch> William Drake wrote: > But it'd also be nice > if there was a letter to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of > the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent > observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable > flood). Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS > coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups. Then he'd have > something to reference when raising the issue with WG > members—preferably in advance of the meeting. Any reason we can't do > this? Since at least so far, no-one has spoken out against writing such a letter, I think it's likely that such a letter should reach consensus or at least rough consensus. So I think that there's no reason at all not to do this. Hence I'd suggest that this just needs someone to go ahead and start drafting it... *Looking around for volunteers* 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 avri at ella.com Sat May 11 09:06:43 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:06:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <585B036F-6222-4FE7-8F23-AA0CDCA3CAFC@ella.com> oh my! On 10 May 2013, at 23:36, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? > > From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " > > Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC support, which means IGC supports...... > > And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" > > I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting something with no reference to IGC > > What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, build up a statement and say, > > "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this petition". > > My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of IGC... > > parminder > > >> >> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that >> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus >> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go >> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >>> say something that like: >>> >>> " >>> The IGC is ...*. >>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >>> >>> signed >>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >>> participants} " >>> >>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >>> substantive issue? >>> >>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>>> to it? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat May 11 09:09:25 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:09:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <585B036F-6222-4FE7-8F23-AA0CDCA3CAFC@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <585B036F-6222-4FE7-8F23-AA0CDCA3CAFC@ella.com> Message-ID: Sent while incomplete. Oh my! Please if Parminder finds the suggestion so unpleasant, consider it withdrawn. I do no to wish to displease him any further. Or deal with the consequences of displeasing him. But if it possible for the rest of you to edit it to somethings that works you, cheers and good on you. avri On 11 May 2013, at 09:06, Avri Doria wrote: > > oh my! > > > On 10 May 2013, at 23:36, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? >> >> From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " >> >> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC support, which means IGC supports...... >> >> And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" >> >> I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting something with no reference to IGC >> >> What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, build up a statement and say, >> >> "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this petition". >> >> My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of IGC... >> >> parminder >> >> >>> >>> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that >>> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus >>> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go >>> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >>>> say something that like: >>>> >>>> " >>>> The IGC is ...*. >>>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >>>> >>>> signed >>>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >>>> participants} " >>>> >>>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >>>> substantive issue? >>>> >>>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>>>> to it? >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 11 09:15:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:15:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130511151511.5dcb290b@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > So there is still a rumor of "advisors". One plausible explanation for the emergence of such a rumor would be that one or more government delegations might consist of government officials plus some Internet governance experts as advisors to the government officials. 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 avri at acm.org Sat May 11 09:15:07 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:15:07 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? References: <026401ce4dbd$23c19550$6b44bff0$@ch> Message-ID: <63B0CAAA-B5E0-4C14-89AC-19509FC5A718@acm.org> Quoted with permission. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Peter Major" > Subject: RE: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? > Date: 10 May 2013 16:29:54 EDT > To: "'Avri Doria'" > > Avri, > > As in the previous CSTD WG on improvements to the IGF member states may come > to the WG meeting with delegations of more than one person. In my previous > mail I've made it clear that I want each country to be represented by one > person, who will take the floor in our discussions. For international > organizations I intend to have the same approach. For civil society, > technical community and business invitations have been sent out to nominated > persons. I have no knowledge about advisors. In the previous working group I > had no problem with this approach and I do not think this working group is > going to be different. I intend to discuss procedural issues at the > beginning of our first meeting and get agreement from the members of the > group. As I indicated I want to have transparent meetings and concentrate on > substance. My goal is to have good discussions and achieve results according > to our mandate. > I am ready to discuss this with you next week. > > Best, > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > Sent: vendredi 10 mai 2013 19:25 > To: Peter Major > Subject: Fwd: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? > > Hi, > > Was wondering if you could confirm or deny. > > Thanks > > avri > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Adam Peake >> Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? >> Date: 10 May 2013 09:40:15 EDT >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Adam Peake >> >> Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working >> group on enhanced cooperation. >> >> We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and >> others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an >> unaccountable back-door. >> >> I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our >> members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group >> meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the >> practice is stopped. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> _ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 11 09:34:14 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 21:34:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 11/05/2013, at 3:26 PM, parminder wrote: > On Saturday 11 May 2013 09:32 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> First, use some boiler plate text to describe what the ICG is. (And do >> we have such text?) So readers know who the statement is coming from. >> >> Second, a simple statement "The participants in the IGC support this >> petition". > > Dont think Avri means IGC to support the statement..... she seems to say trying that kind of thing will get us into substantive discussion... I am happy to be told that I am wrong... > > I do support IGC endorsing the statement against the proposed W3C move to install DRM hooks in the basic web architecture.. I also like to think that we should at least try to get an IGC rough-consensus on this. Let's not give up on that without trying. I also support the use of polls to get a broader segment of IGC members to give their feedback, rather than just the usual suspects chiming in on the mailing list. In my experience an individually-addressed email invitation to a straw poll gets a much higher response rate and can be useful to the coordinators in assessing how widely-held are the dissenting views. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 11 10:45:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 16:45:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I also like to think that we should at least try to get an IGC > rough-consensus on this. Let's not give up on that without trying. Would you be willing to draft a text proposal? 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 Sat May 11 11:01:08 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 17:01:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130511170108.017713ce@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > "The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " > > Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in > IGC support, which means IGC supports...... Good catch. For full accuracy, IGC statements should say something like "IGC supports...", not "The participants in the IGC support...". It is possible for a statement to reach consensus even if not all IGC members support it: Some might be indifferent and neither support nor object. Also "IGC participants" is not a sufficiently precisely defined notion. > to me either (1) > IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are > supporting something with no reference to IGC +1 IGC may set up some kind of forum for advocacy that can be used to develop statements and solicit signatures for statements that don't reach IGC consensus or rough consensus, but I agree that such statements that are not IGC statements should not mention the IGC. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat May 11 11:04:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 00:04:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <63B0CAAA-B5E0-4C14-89AC-19509FC5A718@acm.org> References: <026401ce4dbd$23c19550$6b44bff0$@ch> <63B0CAAA-B5E0-4C14-89AC-19509FC5A718@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you Avri (and thank you Peter) Adam On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Quoted with permission. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Peter Major" >> Subject: RE: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? >> Date: 10 May 2013 16:29:54 EDT >> To: "'Avri Doria'" >> >> Avri, >> >> As in the previous CSTD WG on improvements to the IGF member states may come >> to the WG meeting with delegations of more than one person. In my previous >> mail I've made it clear that I want each country to be represented by one >> person, who will take the floor in our discussions. For international >> organizations I intend to have the same approach. For civil society, >> technical community and business invitations have been sent out to nominated >> persons. I have no knowledge about advisors. In the previous working group I >> had no problem with this approach and I do not think this working group is >> going to be different. I intend to discuss procedural issues at the >> beginning of our first meeting and get agreement from the members of the >> group. As I indicated I want to have transparent meetings and concentrate on >> substance. My goal is to have good discussions and achieve results according >> to our mandate. >> I am ready to discuss this with you next week. >> >> Best, >> >> Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >> Sent: vendredi 10 mai 2013 19:25 >> To: Peter Major >> Subject: Fwd: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? >> >> Hi, >> >> Was wondering if you could confirm or deny. >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Adam Peake >>> Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? >>> Date: 10 May 2013 09:40:15 EDT >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Adam Peake >>> >>> Hearing rumors that "advisors" are being appointed to the CSTD working >>> group on enhanced cooperation. >>> >>> We go through hoops to have people appointed, rip ourselves (and >>> others) apart over the process, and then it seems there might be an >>> unaccountable back-door. >>> >>> I am sure well intentioned, but I think a really bad idea. Could our >>> members on the WG find out the truth to this rumor. Before the group >>> meets. And if turns out to be correct I hope we'll ask that the >>> practice is stopped. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> _ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 11 11:50:02 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 11:50:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130511170108.017713ce@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <20130511170108.017713ce@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi, If you have consensus you write it one way If you don't you write it the other. However, if the discussion were ongoing on the IGC I see no reason why we would want to hide that fact - whether consensus was achieved or not. This enables people to go back to our open archives and see what the discussions was all about. avri On 11 May 2013, at 11:01, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> "The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " >> >> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in >> IGC support, which means IGC supports...... > > Good catch. For full accuracy, IGC statements should say something > like "IGC supports...", not "The participants in the IGC support...". > > It is possible for a statement to reach consensus even if not all IGC > members support it: Some might be indifferent and neither support nor > object. Also "IGC participants" is not a sufficiently precisely defined > notion. > >> to me either (1) >> IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are >> supporting something with no reference to IGC > > +1 > > IGC may set up some kind of forum for advocacy that can be used to > develop statements and solicit signatures for statements that don't > reach IGC consensus or rough consensus, but I agree that such > statements that are not IGC statements should not mention the IGC. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 11 12:08:49 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:08:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > I also like to think that we should at least try to get an IGC > > rough-consensus on this. Let's not give up on that without trying. > > Would you be willing to draft a text proposal? > Before we draft text, let's discuss the issue first. Here is the w3c "oped" on it: http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html "Different publishers use the Web differently, some choosing to make content available free of charge, others preferring to control access. Most people would agree that individuals and institutions in general should have the right to limit access to proprietary information, or charge for access to content they own." is the crucial bit here...is the CSIGC against folks limiting access to stuff they own? For the record, I am playing devil's advocate here, am not supporting any position yet. -- 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat May 11 15:47:36 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 15:47:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> On 11/05/2013 12:08 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html > > "Different publishers use the Web differently, some choosing to make > content available free of charge, others preferring to control access. > Most people would agree that individuals and institutions in general > should have the right to limit access to proprietary information, or > charge for access to content they own." > > is the crucial bit here...is the CSIGC against folks limiting access > to stuff they own? > As noted by others in the comments section of the W3C's blog post, it is already possible to compensate creators or owners of content on the Web. The Web can host all kinds of content. It is possible to pay for content online. Copyright holders already have access to proprietory technologies that enable them to limit access or use of content. So the issue actually is whether the CSIGC is for enshrining into the core language of the Web, i.e. HTML5, mecanisms for digital rights management, at the behest of the MPAA and other big corporations, when mecanisms already exist to do so otherwise. Is the CSIGC for allowing these interests to use user agents, i.e. browsers, to police access and uses of content and therefore, limit control users have over their agents. As the saying goes, code is law... -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 11 16:13:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 22:13:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> Am Sat, 11 May 2013 15:47:36 -0400 schrieb Catherine Roy : > > On 11/05/2013 12:08 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html > > > > "Different publishers use the Web differently, some choosing to > > make content available free of charge, others preferring to control > > access. Most people would agree that individuals and institutions > > in general should have the right to limit access to proprietary > > information, or charge for access to content they own." > > > > is the crucial bit here...is the CSIGC against folks limiting > > access to stuff they own? > > > > > As noted by others in the comments section of the W3C's blog post, it > is already possible to compensate creators or owners of content on > the Web. The Web can host all kinds of content. It is possible to pay > for content online. Copyright holders already have access to > proprietory technologies that enable them to limit access or use of > content. > > So the issue actually is whether the CSIGC is for enshrining into the > core language of the Web, i.e. HTML5, mecanisms for digital rights > management, at the behest of the MPAA and other big corporations, > when mecanisms already exist to do so otherwise. Is the CSIGC for > allowing these interests to use user agents, i.e. browsers, to police > access and uses of content and therefore, limit control users have > over their agents. > > As the saying goes, code is law... > Further, those who hold the keys to those mechanisms (in particular, the encryption keys) are not likely to allow them be used on Free Software operating systems (where the freedom properties of the underlying operating system as a matter of logical necessity would make circumvention of the DRM system easy for anyone who has just minimal knowledge of programming), with the net effect of embedding into the very foundation of the Web discrimination against Free Software operating systems. I don't object against some content being sold. An offer of "if you want this PDF, pay $x and then you may download the PDF" is ok. I can choose to accept it or not, and if I accept it, I pay and then download the PDF, and I'm reasonably confident that it will be usable on the operating system of my choice (GNU/Linux). If the idea of embedding DRM into the fabric of the Web is accepted by W3C and then also in practice, very likely the net effect will be that users of Free Software operating systems will be locked out. If that results in Free Software operating systems no longer being a viable alternative (and hence competition!) to the rather small number of proprietary operating systems with significant market share, that is not only bad news for those of us who prefer Free Software operating systems. It will be very bad news for consumers and consumer rights and privacy everywhere, because it will dramatically increase the economic power of proprietary operating system vendors with significant market share. 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 avri at ella.com Sat May 11 17:16:17 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 17:16:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> good point, but re; > Further, those who hold the keys to those mechanisms (in particular, > the encryption keys) are not likely to allow them be used on Free > Software operating systems Is this really the case? avri On 11 May 2013, at 16:13, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Sat, 11 May 2013 15:47:36 -0400 > schrieb Catherine Roy : > >> >> On 11/05/2013 12:08 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html >>> >>> "Different publishers use the Web differently, some choosing to >>> make content available free of charge, others preferring to control >>> access. Most people would agree that individuals and institutions >>> in general should have the right to limit access to proprietary >>> information, or charge for access to content they own." >>> >>> is the crucial bit here...is the CSIGC against folks limiting >>> access to stuff they own? >>> >> >> >> As noted by others in the comments section of the W3C's blog post, it >> is already possible to compensate creators or owners of content on >> the Web. The Web can host all kinds of content. It is possible to pay >> for content online. Copyright holders already have access to >> proprietory technologies that enable them to limit access or use of >> content. >> >> So the issue actually is whether the CSIGC is for enshrining into the >> core language of the Web, i.e. HTML5, mecanisms for digital rights >> management, at the behest of the MPAA and other big corporations, >> when mecanisms already exist to do so otherwise. Is the CSIGC for >> allowing these interests to use user agents, i.e. browsers, to police >> access and uses of content and therefore, limit control users have >> over their agents. >> >> As the saying goes, code is law... >> > > Further, those who hold the keys to those mechanisms (in particular, > the encryption keys) are not likely to allow them be used on Free > Software operating systems (where the freedom properties of the > underlying operating system as a matter of logical necessity would make > circumvention of the DRM system easy for anyone who has just minimal > knowledge of programming), with the net effect of embedding into the > very foundation of the Web discrimination against Free Software > operating systems. > > I don't object against some content being sold. An offer of "if you > want this PDF, pay $x and then you may download the PDF" is ok. I can > choose to accept it or not, and if I accept it, I pay and then > download the PDF, and I'm reasonably confident that it will be usable > on the operating system of my choice (GNU/Linux). > > If the idea of embedding DRM into the fabric of the Web is accepted by > W3C and then also in practice, very likely the net effect will be that > users of Free Software operating systems will be locked out. If that > results in Free Software operating systems no longer being a viable > alternative (and hence competition!) to the rather small number of > proprietary operating systems with significant market share, that is > not only bad news for those of us who prefer Free Software operating > systems. It will be very bad news for consumers and consumer rights and > privacy everywhere, because it will dramatically increase the economic > power of proprietary operating system vendors with significant market > share. > > 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 Sat May 11 19:09:01 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 19:09:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > good point, but re; > > > Further, those who hold the keys to those mechanisms (in particular, > > the encryption keys) are not likely to allow them be used on Free > > Software operating systems > > Is this really the case? > Hardly seems to be likely. If Members feel strongly about this, then perhaps joining the W3c HTML5 WG might be more effective. -- 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 Sat May 11 19:37:16 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 01:37:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Obama Administration Backs New Open Data Policy Message-ID: >From Intellectual Property Watch US President Barack Obama yesterday signed an executive order that requires federal agencies to make data publicly open in machine-readable formats, while appropriately safeguarding privacy, confidentiality, and security. http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/05/10/obama-administration-backs-new-open-data-policy/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/obama-administration-releases-historic-open-data-rules-enhance-governmen Cheers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat May 11 20:39:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 12:39:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] DNSSEC Performance Message-ID: Dear All, There's an interesting paper by G.Huston and G. Michaelson see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2013-05/dnssec-performance.html There are some interesting considerations that they raise in their paper that is worthwhile factoring in for those planning to sign DNS. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 00:25:09 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 09:55:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <585B036F-6222-4FE7-8F23-AA0CDCA3CAFC@ella.com> Message-ID: <518F19A5.9090402@itforchange.net> On Saturday 11 May 2013 06:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Sent while incomplete. > > Oh my! > > Please if Parminder finds the suggestion so unpleasant, consider it withdrawn. > I do no to wish to displease him any further. > Or deal with the consequences of displeasing him. You have a very inappropriate way of personalisation of political discussions! But I guess that is you! parminder > > But if it possible for the rest of you to edit it to somethings that works you, > cheers and good on you. > > avri > > On 11 May 2013, at 09:06, Avri Doria wrote: > >> oh my! >> >> >> On 10 May 2013, at 23:36, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? >>> From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. " >>> >>> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in IGC support, which means IGC supports...... >>> >>> And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" >>> >>> I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting something with no reference to IGC >>> >>> What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC list, build up a statement and say, >>> >>> "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support this petition". >>> >>> My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no mention of IGC... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that >>>> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus >>>> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go >>>> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could >>>>> say something that like: >>>>> >>>>> " >>>>> The IGC is ...*. >>>>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. >>>>> >>>>> signed >>>>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational >>>>> participants} " >>>>> >>>>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a >>>>> substantive issue? >>>>> >>>>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >>>>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar >>>>>> to it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Norbert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>>>>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 12 00:28:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:28:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings to you all. This is to advise that we need eleven (11) more names/volunteers before we can facilitate the draw. Thanks to all those for volunteering and the current list of names are as follows:- 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar 2) Jeremy Malcolm 3) José Félix Arias Ynche 4) Kerry Brown 5) Avri Doria 6) Sarah Kiden 7) Shaila Mistry 8) José Francisco Callo Romero 9) Carlos Vera Quintana 10) Izumi AIZU 11) Adam Peake 12) Angela Daly 13) Mwendwa Kivuva 14) Keith Davidson Kind Regards, Sala > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun May 12 01:09:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:39:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <518F19A5.9090402@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <585B036F-6222-4FE7-8F23-AA0CDCA3CAFC@ella.com> <518F19A5.9090402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13e97230363.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Unless you have a majority opinion in the igc it would be more appropriate to use avri's wording Without a poll, we do not have enough positive or negative response to determine rough consensus in this case --srs (htc one x) On 12 May 2013 9:55:09 AM parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 11 May 2013 06:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Sent while incomplete. > > > > Oh my! > > > > Please if Parminder finds the suggestion so unpleasant, consider it > withdrawn. > > I do no to wish to displease him any further. > > Or deal with the consequences of displeasing him. > > You have a very inappropriate way of personalisation of political > discussions! But I guess that is you! > > parminder > > > > But if it possible for the rest of you to edit it to somethings that > works you, > > cheers and good on you. > > > > avri > > > > On 11 May 2013, at 09:06, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> oh my! > >> > >> > >> On 10 May 2013, at 23:36, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below? > >>> From Avri's proposes template " The IGC is ...*. The participants in > the IGC support this petition. " > >>> > >>> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in > IGC support, which means IGC supports...... > >>> > >>> And if there is a typo and it is meant to say "the following or > undersigned participants in the IGC support the petition" > >>> > >>> I am not sure how this in between category works, to me either (1) IGC > is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are supporting > something with no reference to IGC > >>> > >>> What is bar to qualify for this new in-between category, indicated b > Avri's framing...... Can, for instance, I and a friend, also on the IGC > list, build up a statement and say, > >>> > >>> "The IGC is ....... . The following participants in the IGC support > this petition". > >>> > >>> My view: either IGC supports something and otherwise there is no > mention of IGC... > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>>> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that > >>>> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus > >>>> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go > >>>> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.) > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > >>>> > >>>> Avri Doria wrote on 28 Apr 2013: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could > >>>>> say something that like: > >>>>> > >>>>> " > >>>>> The IGC is ...*. > >>>>> The participants in the IGC support this petition. > >>>>> > >>>>> signed > >>>>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational > >>>>> participants} " > >>>>> > >>>>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. > >>>>> > >>>>> avri > >>>>> > >>>>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a > >>>>> substantive issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > >>>>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar > >>>>>> to it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Greetings, > >>>>>> Norbert > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 02:02:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:32:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <518F3093.30106@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 March 2013 07:45 PM, Rashmi Rangnath wrote: > All: > > I thought many of you may be interested in this application that > Public Citizen filed opposing the National Association of Boards of > Pharmacy's (NABP) application for the .pharmacy TLD. Public Citizen is > concerned that the registration would allow the NABP to exclude > licensed pharmacies located in Canada from acquiring domain names > under .pharmacy. This would prevent access to affordable medicines for > many in the US. > > A link to Public Citizen's comments is here: > https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145-- > I completely agree, Rashmi. However, you may want to go deeper into the roots of the issue. We should inquire from the civil society constituency engaged with the ICANN why did they not only allow but in fact supported giving all kind of generic names off as TLDs, (including closed generics) including those with such deep public interest implications as .pharmacy .... In fact, it is the government advisory committee (GAC) that recently gave some very important 'advices' to protect public interest. It advised that "strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws" and that the need to "establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory, or industry self-­-regulatory, bodies, including developing a strategy to mitigate as much as possible the risks of fraudulent, and other illegal, activities. " This should very much apply to .pharmacy..... and I think the relevant global regulatory body for this purpose should be the WHO... Public Citizen's referred comments also say that the TLD applicant plans to "maintain exclusionary plans for the domain" The GAC advice says that "the registration restrictions should be appropriate for the types of risks associated with the TLD. The registry operator should administer access in these kinds of registries in a transparent way that does not give an undue preference to any registrars or registrants, including itself, and shall not subject registrars or registrants to an undue disadvantage. " It isalsocategorical that exclusive registry access may be given only if serves a clear 'public interest goal'. (This covers, and hopefully puts the brakes on, closed generic TLD proposals like .book. .cloud, .music and .news). It is highly problematic that the so called multi stakeholder model completely failed to serve the public interest in this case, even with numerous committees etc having going into the issue. And this includes the civil society associated with ICANN.... Finally, governments had to step in to protect the public interest. What has happened deserves a very deep inquiry and reflections, especially by progressive civil society groups . What is touted as a multistakeholder model at the ICANN is highly ideology infested. It is its complete belief in free markets as being able to protect most if not all kinds of public interests, that has resulted in it becoming blind to the various very problematic aspects of the new TLD program that now the governments had to step in to point out... I think that the civil society individuals and groups that work closely with the ICANN, including on its various committees should also be answerable for this.... In some way, they are there to keep vigil on behalf of all civil society... Why did they not intervene in these deep transgressions into the public interest. parminder > > Best, > > Rashmi > > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun May 12 04:05:27 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:05:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] UK company's spyware 'used against Bahrain activist', court papers claim | World news | guardian.co.uk Message-ID: <518F4D47.5000606@gmail.com> Private vices equals Public Virtues... yeah right! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/12/uk-company-spyware-bahrain-claim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 04:53:33 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:53:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... Message-ID: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> How does MS take this intimacy into account? Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google More Sharing Services 12 Why the Senate Should Reject Tom Wheeler Another Industry Crony at the FCC? by B. BLAKE LEVITT President Obama's nomination of Tom Wheeler to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the height of cynical cronyism and industry-pandering. He should not be confirmed. Obama, in fact, could not have found a /worse /nominee than Tom Wheeler to head this most significant regulatory agency -- one with long tentacles into all our lives whether we know it or not. Wheeler is the last person who should have his hands on the levers of the FCC, though he's been aching to do just that for decades. Wheeler has far too many conflicts of interest and industry biases to head the FCC. The FCC, regulates the nation's airwaves and all communications plus its accompanying infrastructure, including all broadcasters, cable companies, telephone-service providers both wired and wireless, satellite communications and the Internet. FCC is at a crucial juncture regarding decisions on new airwave auctions, further media consolidation, net neutrality, and most importantly the updating of the nation's obsolete exposure standards for radiofrequency radiation. The stakes are high. These decisions will affect all U.S. citizens for decades to come in ways great and small. Below are 12 good reasons why the U.S. Senate* should reject Tom Wheeler: *1. Wheeler's financial conflicts. * As the managing director of Core Capital Partners LP in Washington, D.C., Tom Wheeler helps manage a $350 million venture capital firm that invests primarily in the high-growth technology sector -- all with potential business involving the FCC. Founded in 1999, Core Capital has invested in over 45 companies and partnered with over 100 others with a focus on wireless information technology, communications, infrastructure, security, cloud-based software, digital media and technology-enabled service areas. Examples of Core Capital's investments include PureWave Networks, which develops outdoor base stations for the 4G wireless networks; Twisted Pair Solutions, which makes mobile communications software interfaces, BridgeWave Communications, an outdoor gigabit wireless infrastructure/interface company, among many others. (See: http://www.core-capital.com for portfolio information.) Nearly all of Core Capital's clients rely on friendly FCC regulation, lax radiofrequency radiation exposure standards, or more importantly no regulation at all. In 2008, /FierceWireless /included Tom Wheeler in their top ten all-time list of people who helped shape the wireless industry. Wheeler is on a mission and it goes way beyond regulating the quality of our connectivity. *2. Wheeler's professional conflicts/bullying. *Wheeler headed two major industry trade groups: the National Cable Television Association from 1979 to 1984, which includes the largest US cable companies --- Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications; and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, now called CTIA -- the Wireless Association, which includes the four biggest wireless companies --- Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA. CTIA, founded in 1984,//includes not only wireless carriers, but their suppliers, service providers, and manufacturers of wireless data services and products. CTIA advocates at all levels of government and claims to coordinate the industry's voluntary best practices and initiatives. Their behaviors indicate otherwise, however, and Tom Wheeler set their tone years ago. In 2010, CTIA sued the city of San Francisco over that city's first-in-the-nation law that point-of-sale information regarding a cell phone's radiofrequency radiation level, and its specific absorption rate (SAR) be made available prior to sale. It also required a handout be made available saying that the World Health Organization determined radiofrequency radiation to be a 2B possible carcinogen. It was a simple right-to-know law containing the same radiation exposure information buried in company literature deep within the box, available only after purchase. (Increasingly that information is now available only online.) CTIA sued on First Amendment grounds. Apparently making them tell the truth goes against their right to obscure. The 9^th Circuit Federal Court agreed with CTIA and on May 7, 2013, the San Francisco City Board of Supervisors revoked the law because they did not want to open taxpayers to a potential $500,000 penalty in attorney's fees for CTIA. They were also humiliated into accepting a permanent injunction against the right-to-know ordinance just to make sure they didn't come back with anything similar in the future. Despite scores of letters and petitions from across the country encouraging San Francisco to stay the course, CTIA's bullying worked. http://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-surrenders-fight-over-cell-phone-warnings-124624361.html And for good measure, CTIA not only sued but also moved CTIA's annual conference, traditionally held in San Francisco, to Texas, thereby taking significant revenues out of the California economy. These are all punitive tactics, honed under Wheeler while at CTIA and continued by his predecessors. Other states are considering similar legislation. On May 2, 2013, Rep Andrea Boland (D) Maine reintroduced The Children's Wireless Protection Act. It would require that retailers provide a flyer stating the same information about the World Health Organization's classification, require that manufacturers' manuals provide language to avoid direct cell phone contact with the head and body, as well as information on how to reduce excessive exposure, if one chooses, such as limiting use by children, keeping a phone away from reproductive organs, and operating it with a wired headset. The bill would also require retailers to label cell phones at point of purchase with stickers stating the following: "This device emits radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Avoid direct contact." (Full text: : http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP071101.asp) Rep. Boland says it's time to give Maine constituents fair warning of the serious, potentially lethal ramifications of cell phone use, now associated with gliomas -- the deadliest form of brain cancer, among other problems. But the ruling in San Francisco has had a chilling effect, just as intended by CTIA. Boland's bill was tabled until further notice on May 8^th . Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York and others are also considering such legislation. Hopefully these other states will have more pluck than San Francisco. CTIA's aggressive behaviors are well documented and were considerably ramped up under Tom Wheeler's long tenure. He will institute those behaviors in favor of industry if affirmed at the FCC. Expect an FCC ruling that makes point-of-sale information illegal at the state level, a lot more litigation, and bullying. *3. Wheeler's political conflicts.* Tom Wheeler was a top fundraising bundler for President Obama, raising**more than $500,000 in 2012, and from $250,000 to $500,000 for the 2008 campaign. Wheeler has made at least $172,524 in campaign donations since 2007, all to Democratic candidates and party committees. He donated the maximum allowed to both of Obama's presidential campaigns, and the maximum $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee in 2011 and 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. /Time Business & Money /called Wheeler a "true believer," noting that Wheeler and his wife went door-to-door for Obama in Iowa. //(http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-fundraiser-tapped-to-lead-fcc/). His nomination reeks of a /quid pro quo./ *4. Wheeler* *would increase radiofrequency radiation exposures. * After decades of unchecked wireless exposures, continued concern about safety, and three law suits, the FCC is finally reviewing their obsolete radiofrequency (RF) safety standards, instituted in 1996 --- 17 years ago --- but which even back then did not take any studies past 1986 into consideration. Thousands of studies have come out since that time, many indicating adverse effects. (See www.bioinitiative.org) This FCC review affects all aspects of modern life, from broadcast to broadband, cell phones, wifi, smart metering --- virtually all wireless products and infrastructure. The CTIA recently released its 2012 year-end survey. There are now more wireless subscriber connections (326.4 million) in the U.S. than people, and more than 300,000 cell tower sites. That is a tremendous amount of RF exposure to the population that simply did not exist as little as 15 years ago. Concerns over the safety of this area of the electromagnetic spectrum precede the CTIA and were long known in the science community. Wheeler, as director of CTIA, oversaw a $25 million research debacle that ended in more -- not less -- controversy, with virtually no research produced. The project was widely considered in the press to have been a "manufactured doubt" program, intended to contaminate the database with negative studies, prevent clearer understanding and therefore better regulation. Today increasing research from all over the world indicates possible cancer risks among many other physiological problems from mobile-phone use, accompanying infrastructure, and myriad consumer wireless products. In 2012, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a 2B possible carcinogen along with lead, formaldehyde, mercury and DDT. Many European countries and professional organizations now recommend the precautionary principle regarding these ubiquitous exposures, especially for children. Wheeler's entire professional career rests on the assumption that the exposures at current levels are safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The current FCC standards are based on a high-intensity, short-term tissue heating model that does not reflect today's long-term, low-level, chronic non-tissue-heating exposures found to be every bit as biologically active. In addition to the FCC's narrow, ineffective focus, today's standards do not take cumulative exposures from myriad wireless sources functioning at the same time, such as in the average home or workplace. Plus the FCC categorically excludes whole swaths of technology from review if those products meet certain exposure thresholds. The entire model is completely inadequate to protect the public health. Industry is pushing to make the standards more lenient. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report after spending a year researching the health aspects of cell phone usage that stated the radiation limit needed to be reevaluated. At the time of the report, the FCC had the SAR (specific absorption rate) set at 1.6W/kg (the amount of energy absorbed by a unit of tissue). The FCC reevaluated the radiation limit after the GAO report was published, and recently published its own response. FCC states that the SAR limit will stay the same. However, the outer part of the ear has been reclassified as an "extremity,"*//*a designation that legally allows it to absorb more radiation under current specifications. This is going in the wrong direction.// In 1999, a cheery-picking Wheeler said "responsible scientific studies hadn't found a connection." He will likely maintain that stance and the public health could be in serious jeopardy, given the popularity of wireless products. Wheeler would have the ability to not only relax the standards further and grant more categorical exclusions to the very industries he has promoted, funded, and made a fortune from, he would also control any future recommendations for cell phone exposures, especially among children who are known to be more susceptible to such damage. These factors alone should disqualify Wheeler for the chairmanship. While at the CTIA, Wheeler lobbied hard to make sure Congress would set no limits on cell phone use of any kind. He's not about to stop now. *5.* *Wheeler would erode local cell tower siting rights and endanger public health. *When Wheeler was at CTIA, he was among the industry architects who wrote Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prohibited state and municipalities from siting towers based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation -- a health and safety jurisdiction long exercised at the local level. He asked FCC to preempt all local rights in cell tower siting; make illegal temporary moratoriums on tower construction while communities created effective zoning regulations; make it illegal for communities to require that cell providers prove they are in compliance with FCC exposure standards; make it illegal to even mention health or environmental concerns at public hearings -- against First Amendment rights to free speech -- and he pushed back communities seeking legal redress in federal courts. Wheeler's appointment would be a blow to what little power is left regarding state and local rights in their time-honored legal zoning responsibilities to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Wheeler would give the telecoms the right to site infrastructure anywhere, anytime, without local or state review. His appointment could open new areas of litigation. Unsafe infrastructure siting potentially endangers public health and property values and constitutes an illegal taking against the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. *6.* *Wheeler would abandon landline networks. *This is a critical time for FCC decisions that will affect wired v. wireless networks and all information/entertainment/voice delivery choice for consumers. Despite Congress's desire for more diversity in communications services, Wheeler in 2011 advocated for total deregulation and to let AT&T buy the smaller wireless competitor T-Mobile USA Inc. Both the FCC and the U.S. Justice Department opposed the merger and AT&T abandoned the plan. It is well known that AT&T wants to abandon its entire landline network in favor of an all-wireless network -- this at a time when safety issues are on the table regarding wireless exposures. FCC granted them permission to do that and AT&T is currently trying to enact that plan in numerous states now, despite the fact that 1-in-5 Americans rely on landline networks for voice, DSL Internet, and 911 emergency provisions. Landline networks, proven time and again, are far more reliable and secure than wireless networks. Wheeler's appointment would accelerate, and greatly favor the wireless industry over the harder, safer landline system. The U.S. should be favoring fiberoptic networks like countries throughout Europe and Asia for primary connectivity at all levels. *7. * *Wheeler would increase media consolidation. *Further media consolidation could erode press diversity. As president of the CTIA, Wheeler in 2001 pushed to eliminate limits on how many airwaves a company can hold in a given city. The FCC is currently considering whether to revise the limits again. Wheeler's confirmation could further damage media diversity and reduce the number of independent voices intended by Congress. *8.* *Wheeler would decrease consumer choice. *Wheeler has a decades-long track record of favoring wireless over wired networks. He will bring that bias to the critical balance in today's entertainment/communications market between cabled networks and wireless companies. He will decrease, rather than increase, consumer choice -- Congress's clear intent --- and push for deregulation at all levels, using the federal cudgel over state decision-makers. All wired networks will likely suffer under his bias. *9*. *Wheeler would oversee huge spectrum auctions.* If appointed, Wheeler would oversee 120 megahertz of spectrum auctions of airwaves to be voluntarily relinquished (at a price) by television stations after those stations went to digital formats. These are the public's airwaves. Originally, that frequency spectrum was promised to local emergency first responders. But it will now be auctioned to the major telecoms for 4-G high-speed wireless Internet service and mobile broadband. This will bring an increased layer of radiofrequency radiation to the environment/public at a time when safety concerns are paramount and the FCC is reviewing its standards. Wheeler would oversee almost one quarter of the airwaves that Obama set as a national goal and a huge swath of spectrum would be in the hands of a consummate industry insider who has fought against the public interest at every step. *10.* *Wheeler is known for cronyism*. On his blog in 2011, he called AT&T's Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi, one of the smartest, shrewdest policy mavens in the capital and added that merger deliberations could create a new era of wireless policy according to Cicconi's ideas. Wheeler will bring this bias and years of insider relationships to the FCC -- against the public's best interests. *11.* *Wheeler's appointment would further lower the bar on the 'revolving door.'* Reed Hundt, the former FCC Chairman during the Clinton Administration, serves on Wheeler's Core Capital Partners board of advisers -- the man whom Wheeler once repeatedly petitioned for more lax standards and regulations when Wheeler headed the CTIA. Now both men stand to profit from Wheeler taking the helm at the FCC and relaxing regulations further. *12. **Wheeler's conflicts perfectly match FCC's authority**. *At a time when the FCC has pushed for increased wireless broadband in rural areas, and Congress has awarded tax payer dollars as incentives to large communications companies to serve those areas, Wheeler would be in the position not only to affect the nation's infrastructure and radiation exposure standards but to direct all regulatory power to financially benefit friends and former clients. FCC regulates broadcasters, cable companies and telephone-service providers -- all of which intersect with Wheeler's background. Voters should urge the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to reject Tom Wheeler. If Wheeler's nomination gets out of committee, voters should petition their Senators to vote against this cynical power-grab by a longtime industry insider and find a more suitable candidate. President Obama needs to get the message that our regulatory agencies are off-limits to conflicted industry insiders once and for all. Wheeler has long had his camel's nose under the tent at the FCC by being on an important FCC's advisory panel. But it's one thing to ask industry insiders what their opinions/preferences are. It's another to hand the whole kittenkaboddle over to them. Mignon Clyburn, senior Democrat on the FCC commission, will serve as acting chairwoman until a permanent chair is appointed. Thirty-seven U.S. Senators in a letter urged President Obama to nominate FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel as chair. She would be the first woman to head that agency. Rosenworcel has nearly two decades of experience in telecommunications and media policy in both the public and private sector and received wide bipartisan support during her confirmation to the FCC last year. She carries none of the overt conflicts or insider cronyism that Wheeler does and unlike Wheeler, has a solid background in communications law. She is acceptable to industry and public interest advocates alike and would likely be confirmed. Those 37 senators should be urged to stick to their guns and to enlist their colleagues to support her. The first step is to reject Tom Wheeler. We can --- and should --- do better than this. /*B. Blake Levitt* is an award-winning medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor; author, Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves ; and editor, Cell Towers Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard? (www.blakelevitt.com)/ /*Wheeler's nomination must first pass the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D) West Virginia, before going to the full Senate for a vote./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Sun May 12 05:05:55 2013 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:05:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D46B354-AECD-4096-9591-ABE307AAFB77@isoc.be> Dear Sala, You may add my name to the list of volunteers. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Op 12-mei-2013, om 06:28 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende geschreven: > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings to you all. This is to advise that we need eleven (11) more names/volunteers before we can facilitate the draw. Thanks to all those for volunteering and the current list of names are as follows:- > > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > > 4) Kerry Brown > 5) Avri Doria > 6) Sarah Kiden > 7) Shaila Mistry > 8) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 9) Carlos Vera Quintana > 10) Izumi AIZU > 11) Adam Peake > 12) Angela Daly > > 13) Mwendwa Kivuva > > 14) Keith Davidson > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 05:42:56 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:42:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG said to be renewed Message-ID: Hi The UN announced two days ago that the MAG has been renewed, 56 members, 15 new. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2013/pi2058.doc.htm However, the link provided for the list of members, http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1290-mag-2013, yields 404 - Article #1290 not found, and there's nothing else on the IGF site. Presumably this will be fixed tomorrow. Cheers Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 05:59:24 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:59:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <20130511145837.32603854@quill.bollow.ch> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> <20130511145837.32603854@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0B328CB2-06B6-4434-B4CF-DEED2F1E196B@uzh.ch> Hi Norbert, On May 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > William Drake wrote: > >> But it'd also be nice >> if there was a letter to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of >> the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent >> observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable >> flood). Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS >> coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups. Then he'd have >> something to reference when raising the issue with WG >> members—preferably in advance of the meeting. Any reason we can't do >> this? > > Since at least so far, no-one has spoken out against writing such a > letter, I think it's likely that such a letter should reach consensus > or at least rough consensus. So I think that there's no reason at all > not to do this. > > Hence I'd suggest that this just needs someone to go ahead and start > drafting it... > > *Looking around for volunteers* If the letter's coming from you a coordinator, why not just draft it rather than wait for a group to form? One paragraph saying the meeting should be open and transparent. We have no caucus meeting scheduled during the IGF week per usual, no caucus input to the WTPF, no caucus input to the IGF meeting, and no caucus input to the WGEC. Shouldn't such things get priority over concocting speech codes for the list etc? Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 12 06:20:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 22:20:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <0B328CB2-06B6-4434-B4CF-DEED2F1E196B@uzh.ch> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> <20130511145837.32603854@quill.bollow.ch> <0B328CB2-06B6-4434-B4CF-DEED2F1E196B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <600D020E-B88D-4FF8-B91A-FE7025755DF3@gmail.com> Hi, It would be a bad idea to write a letter to try and talk about openness. The chair has his discretion as to who he wishes to invite to his meeting. The fact that we have representatives on the WG already is sufficient. Also when Norbert wrote a letter to another stakeholder in his capacity, he came under fire. It would be unfair to get him to do the same thing now. Besides, we do not even know if there are advisors who have been brought in. For all we know, there are observers. Kind Regards, Sent from my iPad On May 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Norbert, > > On May 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> William Drake wrote: >> >>> But it'd also be nice >>> if there was a letter to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of >>> the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent >>> observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable >>> flood). Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS >>> coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups. Then he'd have >>> something to reference when raising the issue with WG >>> members—preferably in advance of the meeting. Any reason we can't do >>> this? >> >> Since at least so far, no-one has spoken out against writing such a >> letter, I think it's likely that such a letter should reach consensus >> or at least rough consensus. So I think that there's no reason at all >> not to do this. >> >> Hence I'd suggest that this just needs someone to go ahead and start >> drafting it... >> >> *Looking around for volunteers* > > If the letter's coming from you a coordinator, why not just draft it rather than wait for a group to form? One paragraph saying the meeting should be open and transparent. > > We have no caucus meeting scheduled during the IGF week per usual, no caucus input to the WTPF, no caucus input to the IGF meeting, and no caucus input to the WGEC. Shouldn't such things get priority over concocting speech codes for the list etc? > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 06:34:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:04:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... In-Reply-To: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> References: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <518F7038.8070902@itforchange.net> It is such a shame. I figure the ICT and Internet game for the US establishment is really 'global' - and here the government and private sector would stand as one. Government’s real job is to provide policy support for global ICT/Internet corporations. More consolidation, greater corporate power, the better .... And at the altar of this global imperative, domestic issues of industry versus larger public interest has been decided to be largely sacrificed. In fact, there seem to be people in the US establishment who may really think that overall the people of the US will also benefit much more from consolidating 'Intellectual property plus Internet controls' based geo-economic and geo-political advantages than they may benefit from public interest based communication regulation. That is the most favourable interpretation I can give to this news.... A perfect confirmation, if one was needed, that ICTs and Internet are the main axis or pillar of US's geo-economic and geo-political plans . Time other countires see through this and learn to protect their respective interests. and also hopefully global civil soicety in the IG space stop providing cover fire to US's global ICT/Internet designs that will sooner than latter extinguish all possibilities of real freedoms and equality that ICTs/ Internet may have promised... parminder On Sunday 12 May 2013 02:23 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > How does MS take this intimacy into account? > > Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 > > Share on facebook > > Share on twitter > > Share on google > > More Sharing Services > > 12 > > > Why the Senate Should Reject Tom Wheeler > > > Another Industry Crony at the FCC? > > by B. BLAKE LEVITT > > President Obama’s nomination of Tom Wheeler to head the Federal > Communications Commission (FCC) is the height of cynical cronyism and > industry-pandering. He should not be confirmed. Obama, in fact, > could not have found a /worse /nominee than Tom Wheeler to head this > most significant regulatory agency – one with long tentacles into all > our lives whether we know it or not. Wheeler is the last person who > should have his hands on the levers of the FCC, though he’s been > aching to do just that for decades. > > Wheeler has far too many conflicts of interest and industry biases to > head the FCC. The FCC, regulates the nation’s airwaves and all > communications plus its accompanying infrastructure, including all > broadcasters, cable companies, telephone-service providers both wired > and wireless, satellite communications and the Internet. FCC is at a > crucial juncture regarding decisions on new airwave auctions, further > media consolidation, net neutrality, and most importantly the updating > of the nation’s obsolete exposure standards for radiofrequency > radiation. The stakes are high. These decisions will affect all U.S. > citizens for decades to come in ways great and small. > > Below are 12 good reasons why the U.S. Senate* should reject Tom Wheeler: > > *1. Wheeler’s financial conflicts. * As the managing director of > Core Capital Partners LP in Washington, D.C., Tom Wheeler helps > manage a $350 million venture capital firm that invests primarily > in the high-growth technology sector – all with potential business > involving the FCC. Founded in 1999, Core Capital has invested in > over 45 companies and partnered with over 100 others with a focus > on wireless information technology, communications, > infrastructure, security, cloud-based software, digital media and > technology-enabled service areas. Examples of Core Capital’s > investments include PureWave Networks, which develops outdoor base > stations for the 4G wireless networks; Twisted Pair Solutions, > which makes mobile communications software interfaces, BridgeWave > Communications, an outdoor gigabit wireless > infrastructure/interface company, among many others. (See: > http://www.core-capital.com for portfolio information.) Nearly > all of Core Capital’s clients rely on friendly FCC regulation, lax > radiofrequency radiation exposure standards, or more importantly > no regulation at all. In 2008, /FierceWireless /included Tom > Wheeler in their top ten all-time list of people who helped shape > the wireless industry. Wheeler is on a mission and it goes way > beyond regulating the quality of our connectivity. > > *2. Wheeler’s professional conflicts/bullying. *Wheeler headed > two major industry trade groups: the National Cable Television > Association from 1979 to 1984, which includes the largest US cable > companies — Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications; and > the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, now > called CTIA – the Wireless Association, which includes the four > biggest wireless companies — Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and > T-Mobile USA. CTIA, founded in 1984,//includes not only wireless > carriers, but their suppliers, service providers, and > manufacturers of wireless data services and products. CTIA > advocates at all levels of government and claims to coordinate the > industry’s voluntary best practices and initiatives. Their > behaviors indicate otherwise, however, and Tom Wheeler set their > tone years ago. In 2010, CTIA sued the city of San Francisco over > that city’s first-in-the-nation law that point-of-sale information > regarding a cell phone’s radiofrequency radiation level, and its > specific absorption rate (SAR) be made available prior to sale. It > also required a handout be made available saying that the World > Health Organization determined radiofrequency radiation to be a 2B > possible carcinogen. It was a simple right-to-know law containing > the same radiation exposure information buried in company > literature deep within the box, available only after purchase. > (Increasingly that information is now available only online.) CTIA > sued on First Amendment grounds. Apparently making them tell the > truth goes against their right to obscure. The 9^th Circuit > Federal Court agreed with CTIA and on May 7, 2013, the San > Francisco City Board of Supervisors revoked the law because they > did not want to open taxpayers to a potential $500,000 penalty in > attorney’s fees for CTIA. They were also humiliated into accepting > a permanent injunction against the right-to-know ordinance just to > make sure they didn’t come back with anything similar in the > future. Despite scores of letters and petitions from across the > country encouraging San Francisco to stay the course, CTIA’s > bullying worked. > http://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-surrenders-fight-over-cell-phone-warnings-124624361.html > And for good measure, CTIA not only sued but also moved CTIA’s > annual conference, traditionally held in San Francisco, to Texas, > thereby taking significant revenues out of the California economy. > These are all punitive tactics, honed under Wheeler while at CTIA > and continued by his predecessors. Other states are considering > similar legislation. On May 2, 2013, Rep Andrea Boland (D) Maine > reintroduced The Children’s Wireless Protection Act. It would > require that retailers provide a flyer stating the same > information about the World Health Organization’s classification, > require that manufacturers’ manuals provide language to avoid > direct cell phone contact with the head and body, as well as > information on how to reduce excessive exposure, if one chooses, > such as limiting use by children, keeping a phone away from > reproductive organs, and operating it with a wired headset. The > bill would also require retailers to label cell phones at point of > purchase with stickers stating the following: “This device emits > radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Avoid direct contact.” > (Full text: : > http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP071101.asp) > Rep. Boland says it’s time to give Maine constituents fair warning > of the serious, potentially lethal ramifications of cell phone > use, now associated with gliomas – the deadliest form of brain > cancer, among other problems. But the ruling in San Francisco has > had a chilling effect, just as intended by CTIA. Boland’s bill was > tabled until further notice on May 8^th . Pennsylvania, Oregon, > New York and others are also considering such legislation. > Hopefully these other states will have more pluck than San > Francisco. CTIA’s aggressive behaviors are well documented and > were considerably ramped up under Tom Wheeler’s long tenure. He > will institute those behaviors in favor of industry if affirmed at > the FCC. Expect an FCC ruling that makes point-of-sale information > illegal at the state level, a lot more litigation, and bullying. > > *3. Wheeler’s political conflicts.* Tom Wheeler was a top > fundraising bundler for President Obama, raising**more than > $500,000 in 2012, and from $250,000 to $500,000 for the 2008 > campaign. Wheeler has made at least $172,524 in campaign donations > since 2007, all to Democratic candidates and party committees. He > donated the maximum allowed to both of Obama’s presidential > campaigns, and the maximum $30,800 to the Democratic National > Committee in 2011 and 2012, according to the Center for Responsive > Politics. /Time Business & Money /called Wheeler a “true > believer,” noting that Wheeler and his wife went door-to-door for > Obama in Iowa. > //(http://business.time.com/2013/05/02/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-fundraiser-tapped-to-lead-fcc/). > His nomination reeks of a /quid pro quo./ > > *4. Wheeler* *would increase radiofrequency radiation exposures. > * After decades of unchecked wireless exposures, continued concern > about safety, and three law suits, the FCC is finally reviewing > their obsolete radiofrequency (RF) safety standards, instituted in > 1996 — 17 years ago — but which even back then did not take any > studies past 1986 into consideration. Thousands of studies have > come out since that time, many indicating adverse effects. (See > www.bioinitiative.org) This FCC review affects all aspects of > modern life, from broadcast to broadband, cell phones, wifi, smart > metering — virtually all wireless products and infrastructure. The > CTIA recently released its 2012 year-end survey. There are now > more wireless subscriber connections (326.4 million) in the U.S. > than people, and more than 300,000 cell tower sites. That is a > tremendous amount of RF exposure to the population that simply did > not exist as little as 15 years ago. Concerns over the safety of > this area of the electromagnetic spectrum precede the CTIA and > were long known in the science community. Wheeler, as director of > CTIA, oversaw a $25 million research debacle that ended in more – > not less – controversy, with virtually no research produced. The > project was widely considered in the press to have been a > “manufactured doubt” program, intended to contaminate the database > with negative studies, prevent clearer understanding and > therefore better regulation. Today increasing research from all > over the world indicates possible cancer risks among many other > physiological problems from mobile-phone use, accompanying > infrastructure, and myriad consumer wireless products. In 2012, > the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research > on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a 2B > possible carcinogen along with lead, formaldehyde, mercury and > DDT. Many European countries and professional organizations now > recommend the precautionary principle regarding these ubiquitous > exposures, especially for children. Wheeler’s entire professional > career rests on the assumption that the exposures at current > levels are safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The > current FCC standards are based on a high-intensity, short-term > tissue heating model that does not reflect today’s long-term, > low-level, chronic non-tissue-heating exposures found to be every > bit as biologically active. In addition to the FCC’s narrow, > ineffective focus, today’s standards do not take cumulative > exposures from myriad wireless sources functioning at the same > time, such as in the average home or workplace. Plus the FCC > categorically excludes whole swaths of technology from review if > those products meet certain exposure thresholds. The entire model > is completely inadequate to protect the public health. Industry is > pushing to make the standards more lenient. In 2012, the > Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report after > spending a year researching the health aspects of cell phone usage > that stated the radiation limit needed to be reevaluated. At the > time of the report, the FCC had the SAR (specific absorption rate) > set at 1.6W/kg (the amount of energy absorbed by a unit of > tissue). The FCC reevaluated the radiation limit after the GAO > report was published, and recently published its own response. FCC > states that the SAR limit will stay the same. However, the outer > part of the ear has been reclassified as an “extremity,”*//*a > designation that legally allows it to absorb more radiation under > current specifications. This is going in the wrong direction.// In > 1999, a cheery-picking Wheeler said “responsible scientific > studies hadn’t found a connection.” He will likely maintain that > stance and the public health could be in serious jeopardy, given > the popularity of wireless products. Wheeler would have the > ability to not only relax the standards further and grant more > categorical exclusions to the very industries he has promoted, > funded, and made a fortune from, he would also control any future > recommendations for cell phone exposures, especially among > children who are known to be more susceptible to such damage. > These factors alone should disqualify Wheeler for the > chairmanship. While at the CTIA, Wheeler lobbied hard to make sure > Congress would set no limits on cell phone use of any kind. He’s > not about to stop now. > > *5.* *Wheeler would erode local cell tower siting rights and > endanger public health. *When Wheeler was at CTIA, he was among > the industry architects who wrote Section 704 of the > Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prohibited state and > municipalities from siting towers based on the environmental > effects of radiofrequency radiation – a health and safety > jurisdiction long exercised at the local level. He asked FCC to > preempt all local rights in cell tower siting; make illegal > temporary moratoriums on tower construction while communities > created effective zoning regulations; make it illegal for > communities to require that cell providers prove they are in > compliance with FCC exposure standards; make it illegal to even > mention health or environmental concerns at public hearings – > against First Amendment rights to free speech – and he pushed back > communities seeking legal redress in federal courts. Wheeler’s > appointment would be a blow to what little power is left regarding > state and local rights in their time-honored legal zoning > responsibilities to protect public health, safety, and welfare. > Wheeler would give the telecoms the right to site infrastructure > anywhere, anytime, without local or state review. His appointment > could open new areas of litigation. Unsafe infrastructure siting > potentially endangers public health and property values and > constitutes an illegal taking against the Tenth Amendment of the > U.S. Constitution. > > *6.* *Wheeler would abandon landline networks. *This is a critical > time for FCC decisions that will affect wired v. wireless networks > and all information/entertainment/voice delivery choice for > consumers. Despite Congress’s desire for more diversity in > communications services, Wheeler in 2011 advocated for total > deregulation and to let AT&T buy the smaller wireless competitor > T-Mobile USA Inc. Both the FCC and the U.S. Justice Department > opposed the merger and AT&T abandoned the plan. It is well known > that AT&T wants to abandon its entire landline network in favor of > an all-wireless network – this at a time when safety issues are on > the table regarding wireless exposures. FCC granted them > permission to do that and AT&T is currently trying to enact that > plan in numerous states now, despite the fact that 1-in-5 > Americans rely on landline networks for voice, DSL Internet, and > 911 emergency provisions. Landline networks, proven time and > again, are far more reliable and secure than wireless networks. > Wheeler’s appointment would accelerate, and greatly favor the > wireless industry over the harder, safer landline system. The U.S. > should be favoring fiberoptic networks like countries throughout > Europe and Asia for primary connectivity at all levels. > > *7. * *Wheeler would increase media consolidation. *Further media > consolidation could erode press diversity. As president of the > CTIA, Wheeler in 2001 pushed to eliminate limits on how many > airwaves a company can hold in a given city. The FCC is currently > considering whether to revise the limits again. Wheeler’s > confirmation could further damage media diversity and reduce the > number of independent voices intended by Congress. > > *8.* *Wheeler would decrease consumer choice. *Wheeler has a > decades-long track record of favoring wireless over wired > networks. He will bring that bias to the critical balance in > today’s entertainment/communications market between cabled > networks and wireless companies. He will decrease, rather than > increase, consumer choice – Congress’s clear intent — and push for > deregulation at all levels, using the federal cudgel over state > decision-makers. All wired networks will likely suffer under his bias. > > *9*. *Wheeler would oversee huge spectrum auctions.* If appointed, > Wheeler would oversee 120 megahertz of spectrum auctions of > airwaves to be voluntarily relinquished (at a price) by television > stations after those stations went to digital formats. These are > the public’s airwaves. Originally, that frequency spectrum was > promised to local emergency first responders. But it will now be > auctioned to the major telecoms for 4-G high-speed wireless > Internet service and mobile broadband. This will bring an > increased layer of radiofrequency radiation to the > environment/public at a time when safety concerns are paramount > and the FCC is reviewing its standards. Wheeler would oversee > almost one quarter of the airwaves that Obama set as a national > goal and a huge swath of spectrum would be in the hands of a > consummate industry insider who has fought against the public > interest at every step. > > *10.* *Wheeler is known for cronyism*. On his blog in 2011, he > called AT&T’s Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi, one of > the smartest, shrewdest policy mavens in the capital and added > that merger deliberations could create a new era of wireless > policy according to Cicconi’s ideas. Wheeler will bring this bias > and years of insider relationships to the FCC – against the > public’s best interests. > > *11.* *Wheeler’s appointment would further lower the bar on the > ‘revolving door.’* Reed Hundt, the former FCC Chairman during the > Clinton Administration, serves on Wheeler’s Core Capital Partners > board of advisers – the man whom Wheeler once repeatedly > petitioned for more lax standards and regulations when Wheeler > headed the CTIA. Now both men stand to profit from Wheeler taking > the helm at the FCC and relaxing regulations further. > > *12. **Wheeler’s conflicts perfectly match FCC’s authority**. *At > a time when the FCC has pushed for increased wireless broadband in > rural areas, and Congress has awarded tax payer dollars as > incentives to large communications companies to serve those areas, > Wheeler would be in the position not only to affect the nation’s > infrastructure and radiation exposure standards but to direct all > regulatory power to financially benefit friends and former > clients. FCC regulates broadcasters, cable companies and > telephone-service providers – all of which intersect with > Wheeler’s background. > > Voters should urge the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and > Transportation to reject Tom Wheeler. If Wheeler’s nomination gets out > of committee, voters should petition their Senators to vote against > this cynical power-grab by a longtime industry insider and find a more > suitable candidate. President Obama needs to get the message that our > regulatory agencies are off-limits to conflicted industry insiders > once and for all. Wheeler has long had his camel’s nose under the tent > at the FCC by being on an important FCC’s advisory panel. But it’s one > thing to ask industry insiders what their opinions/preferences are. > It’s another to hand the whole kittenkaboddle over to them. > > Mignon Clyburn, senior Democrat on the FCC commission, will serve as > acting chairwoman until a permanent chair is appointed. Thirty-seven > U.S. Senators in a letter > urged > President Obama to nominate FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel as > chair. She would be the first woman to head that agency. Rosenworcel > has nearly two decades of experience in telecommunications and media > policy in both the public and private sector and received wide > bipartisan support during her confirmation to the FCC last year. She > carries none of the overt conflicts or insider cronyism that Wheeler > does and unlike Wheeler, has a solid background in communications law. > She is acceptable to industry and public interest advocates alike and > would likely be confirmed. Those 37 senators should be urged to stick > to their guns and to enlist their colleagues to support her. The first > step is to reject Tom Wheeler. We can — and should — do better than this. > > /*B. Blake Levitt* is an award-winning medical/science journalist, > former New York Times contributor; author, Electromagnetic Fields, A > Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves > ; > and editor, Cell Towers Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard? > > (www.blakelevitt.com)/ > > /*Wheeler’s nomination must first pass the U.S. Senate Committee on > Commerce, Science and Transportation, chaired by Senator Jay > Rockefeller (D) West Virginia, before going to the full Senate for a > vote./ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun May 12 06:47:55 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 06:47:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala - you have one more than you thought :-) I volunteered already - for the NomCom draw Deirdre On 8 May 2013 01:59, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Revised list of Volunteers are as follows: > > Volunteers for the NomCom for the 2013 Appeals Team renewal > =========================================================== > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 2) Jeremy Malcolm > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > 4) Kerry Brown > 5) Avri Doria > 6) Sarah Kiden > 7) Shaila Mistry > 8) José Francisco Callo Romero > 9) Carlos Vera Quintana > 10) Izumi AIZU > 11) Adam Peake > 12) Angela Daly > > > For those who would like to volunteer please email: < > coordinators at igcaucus.org>. The next update will be in the coming week. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Warm Greetings! We need 25 names before the draw can be initiated. >> >> As of today, here are the list of volunteers: >> >> 1. Chaitanya Dhareshwar; >> 2. Jeremy Malcolm; >> 3. Shaila Mistry; >> 4.Deirdre Williams; >> 5.J.F Callo; >> 6.Carlos Vera Quintana >> 7.Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Sun May 12 07:46:20 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:46:20 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <5D46B354-AECD-4096-9591-ABE307AAFB77@isoc.be> References: <5D46B354-AECD-4096-9591-ABE307AAFB77@isoc.be> Message-ID: Add me, if I am eligible this time On Sunday, 12 May 2013, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear Sala, > > You may add my name to the list of volunteers. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Op 12-mei-2013, om 06:28 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende > geschreven: > > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings to you all. This is to advise that we need eleven (11) more > names/volunteers before we can facilitate the draw. Thanks to all those for > volunteering and the current list of names are as follows:- > > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > > 4) Kerry Brown > 5) Avri Doria > 6) Sarah Kiden > 7) Shaila Mistry > 8) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 9) Carlos Vera Quintana > 10) Izumi AIZU > 11) Adam Peake > 12) Angela Daly > > 13) Mwendwa Kivuva > > 14) Keith Davidson > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > [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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: > > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 12 07:53:41 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 20:53:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation? In-Reply-To: <600D020E-B88D-4FF8-B91A-FE7025755DF3@gmail.com> References: <486A9753-802D-4DA0-8B0A-8448335BD8DB@ella.com> <20130510180623.16edc880@quill.bollow.ch> <1822CAEE-1FB5-47B2-83B0-0BF5B371B8B1@uzh.ch> <20130511145837.32603854@quill.bollow.ch> <0B328CB2-06B6-4434-B4CF-DEED2F1E196B@uzh.ch> <600D020E-B88D-4FF8-B91A-FE7025755DF3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala, Suggestion was that one of the WG members ask, not the IGC or coordinators. And that was done, and we have seen Peter Major's reply. And that's good. Best, Adam On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a bad idea to write a letter to try and talk about openness. The chair has his discretion as to who he wishes to invite to his meeting. The fact that we have representatives on the WG already is sufficient. > > Also when Norbert wrote a letter to another stakeholder in his capacity, he came under fire. It would be unfair to get him to do the same thing now. > > Besides, we do not even know if there are advisors who have been brought in. For all we know, there are observers. > > Kind Regards, > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Norbert, >> >> On May 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> But it'd also be nice >>>> if there was a letter to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of >>>> the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent >>>> observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable >>>> flood). Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS >>>> coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups. Then he'd have >>>> something to reference when raising the issue with WG >>>> members—preferably in advance of the meeting. Any reason we can't do >>>> this? >>> >>> Since at least so far, no-one has spoken out against writing such a >>> letter, I think it's likely that such a letter should reach consensus >>> or at least rough consensus. So I think that there's no reason at all >>> not to do this. >>> >>> Hence I'd suggest that this just needs someone to go ahead and start >>> drafting it... >>> >>> *Looking around for volunteers* >> >> If the letter's coming from you a coordinator, why not just draft it rather than wait for a group to form? One paragraph saying the meeting should be open and transparent. >> >> We have no caucus meeting scheduled during the IGF week per usual, no caucus input to the WTPF, no caucus input to the IGF meeting, and no caucus input to the WGEC. Shouldn't such things get priority over concocting speech codes for the list etc? >> >> Bill >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judith at jhellerstein.com Sun May 12 08:49:03 2013 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 08:49:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] MAG said to be renewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <715FE97C-D4D1-40F3-965E-7891C281EA3C@jhellerstein.com> All Bill's link for the 2013 MAG members works today for me. Thanks for posting it. Judith Sent from my iPad Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID: judithhellerstein On May 12, 2013, at 5:42 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > The UN announced two days ago that the MAG has been renewed, 56 members, 15 new. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2013/pi2058.doc.htm However, the link provided for the list of members, http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-process/1290-mag-2013, yields 404 - Article #1290 not found, and there's nothing else on the IGF site. Presumably this will be fixed tomorrow. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 13:44:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 23:14:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <518FD4E6.4020003@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? Are we moving on this... or contributing anything else to WTPF...... I support IGC endorsing this.. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > >> On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: >>>> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, >>>> or just organizations with paid staff? >>> Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either >>> (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression >>> came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. >> Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! >> >> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >> >> Full text is below: >> >> We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the >> ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to >> implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and >> protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. >> >> These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet >> governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy >> topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, >> openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and >> security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in >> particular freedom of expression. >> >> We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal >> Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These >> begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key >> internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; >> the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of >> transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to >> address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move >> forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. >> >> Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s >> framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet >> achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring >> to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF >> facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and >> authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring >> all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the >> national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for >> civil society to express their views, for example through an online >> platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through >> speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as >> providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the >> WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables >> participation by all, including persons with disabilities. >> >> Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts >> toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, >> and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. >> We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these >> policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve >> the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public >> interest and fundamental human rights. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 12 13:47:46 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 14:47:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <518FD4E6.4020003@itforchange.net> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <518FD4E6.4020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <518FD5C2.2010904@cafonso.ca> Nupef (BR) is endorsing this. --c.a. On 05/12/2013 02:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? > > Are we moving on this... or contributing anything else to WTPF...... > > I support IGC endorsing this.. > > parminder >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 >> schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : >> >>> On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: >>>>> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, >>>>> or just organizations with paid staff? >>>> Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either >>>> (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression >>>> came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. >>> Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>> >>> Full text is below: >>> >>> We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the >>> ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to >>> implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and >>> protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. >>> >>> These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet >>> governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy >>> topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, >>> openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and >>> security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in >>> particular freedom of expression. >>> >>> We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal >>> Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These >>> begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key >>> internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; >>> the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of >>> transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to >>> address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move >>> forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. >>> >>> Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s >>> framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet >>> achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring >>> to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF >>> facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and >>> authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring >>> all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the >>> national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for >>> civil society to express their views, for example through an online >>> platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through >>> speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as >>> providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the >>> WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables >>> participation by all, including persons with disabilities. >>> >>> Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts >>> toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, >>> and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. >>> We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these >>> policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve >>> the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public >>> interest and fundamental human rights. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 12 14:47:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:47:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Mike Masnick: IPO Association Against Helping The Blind Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09ec01ce4f41$31f4d300$95de7900$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Manon Ress Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:34 AM To: a2k discuss list Subject: [A2k] Mike Masnick: IPO Association Against Helping The Blind Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent' Intellectual Property Owners Association Against Helping The Blind Because It Would 'Set A Dangerous Precedent' from the encouraging-rights-for-the-public-would-do-what-now? dept by Mike Masnick Wed, May 8th 2013 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/00585822974/intellectual-property -owners-association-against-helping-blind-because-it-would-set-dangerous-pre cedent.shtml#comments We've been covering the latest efforts by copyright maximalists to screw over the blind in the decades-in-waiting WIPO treaty process to help them get more access to content by creating clear carveouts in copyright law that protect the rights of the blind and of those who are transforming works for the blind. Basically, it's about protecting the fundamental rights of the blind to have access to information that others have because they have sight. This process has gone on for ages, in large part because copyright maximalists absolutely fear the idea that anyone might put forth an agreement that ever so slightly pushes back on the maximalist agenda. The amazing thing is that they're not even subtle about this. Last year, we noted that in a video by Jamie Love showing Alan Adler, a VP for the Association of American Publishers, Adler was quite upfront about the fact that they're against this agreement for the blind not because of the blind folks who need the help, but rather because they're afraid of even opening the door to expanding things like fair use -- which he claims is some sort of attack on copyright. Jamie Love has now called our attention to a letter sent by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) to Teresa Stanek Rea, the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the USPTO, concerning this treaty, in which the IPO is equally explicit that its main complaint is any expansion of user rights like fair use is simply not acceptable. From the full letter, which is also embedded below: IPO supports international action that addresses the needs of the visually impaired in meaningful ways, but we are concerned about the VIP treaty as currently drafted, focused exclusively on L/Es and not on the rights holders whose copyrights are at stake. We are also concerned about the potentially negative, precedential effect that a one-sided, exceptions-focused VIP treaty may have on parallel developments at WIPO and in other international negotiations This is all sorts of hilarious. After all, the folks at IPO have long supported incredibly one-sided agreements that only focus on the expansion of copyright, and they're among those who have actively fought any attempt to include user rights (they prefer to call them "limitations and exceptions") in such agreements. So for them to suddenly step up and complain that this one small, narrowly focused agreement is a problem because it "only" focuses on such things, without regards to their "rights holders whose copyrights are at stake" is pretty funny. Why has IPO never been concerned about the rights of the public and users in every other such agreement? Our main concern about the VIP treaty, as currently drafted, is that it addresses L/Es to copyrights in isolation, without parallel provisions addressing IP holders' rights. The proposed VIP treaty would create specific L/Es to copyright protection, with the aim of broadening access to print works for the visually impaired. However, it would not reflect the importance of protecting the copyright of those who created the work. Okay, so simple question for the IPO folks: in all future agreements that it supports, will it agree to support a "balance" that addresses user rights, rather than focusing on "copyrights in isolation without parallel provisions addressing users rights?" The idea that the "rights" here are only one way and must be constantly ratcheted up is disingenuous and somewhat sickening. It's this position that has kept the blind community from having access to all sorts of works for decades. And during those decades, folks like IPO have supported all sorts of incredibly one-sided expansions to copyright law without concerns for any public or user rights. -- Manon Ress Knowledge Ecology International manon.ress at keionline.org tel.: +1 202 332 2670 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon May 13 01:47:06 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 22:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation for WSIS+10 Message-ID: <1368424026.64886.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/remoteparticipation/adobe_connect.asp 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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Mon May 13 03:07:46 2013 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:07:46 +0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2011-12). Fifth Global E-Governance Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, A global study '*Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide* (2011-12). Fifth Global E-Governance Survey' of the performance of municipal e-governance was conducted jointly by the E-Governance Institute in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University-Newark and the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. The survey evaluated websites of around 100 municipalities worldwide in terms of privacy, usability, content, services, and citizen and social engagement, and ranked the cities on a global scale. Co-sponsored by the Public Technology Institute. As a direct result of the innovative use of e-governance, top ranked municipalities provide their citizens with opportunities to participate in governmental processes, including well-organized and systematic opportunities to submit their ideas and suggestions on proposed policies via policy forums, enabling government administrators and elected officials to respond directly to citizen action when establishing public policies http://publiccommons.ca/public/uploads/literature/Digital_Governance_in_Municipalities_Worldwide_2011-12.pdf *Top 20 Cities in Digital Governance Worldwide* *Ranking City, Score* 1 Seoul 82.23 2 Toronto 64.31 3 Madrid 63.63 4 Prague 61.72 5 Hong Kong 60.81 6 New York 60.49 7 Stockholm 60.26 8 Bratislava 56.74 9 London 56.19 10 Shanghai 55.49 11 Vilnius 55.35 12 Vienna 54.79 13 Helsinki 54.22 14 Auckland 53.19 15 Dubai 53.18 16 Singapore 52.21 17 Moscow 51.77 18 Copenhagen 50.06 19 Yerevan 49.97 20 Paris 48.65 http://publiccommons.ca/public/uploads/literature/Digital_Governance_in_Municipalities_Worldwide_2011-12.pdf Narine Khachatryan Media Education Center www.safe.am www.immasin.am www.mediaeducation.am -- 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Mon May 13 04:13:58 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:13:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: It is endorsed +1 2013/5/10 Norbert Bollow > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > > > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, > > >> or just organizations with paid staff? > > > > > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either > > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression > > > came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > > > Full text is below: > > > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the > > ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to > > implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and > > protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in > > particular freedom of expression. > > > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These > > begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key > > internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; > > the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of > > transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to > > address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move > > forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring > > to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF > > facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and > > authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring > > all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the > > national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for > > civil society to express their views, for example through an online > > platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through > > speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as > > providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the > > WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. > > We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these > > policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve > > the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public > > interest and fundamental human rights. > > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 13 04:30:54 2013 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:30:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <5D46B354-AECD-4096-9591-ABE307AAFB77@isoc.be> References: <5D46B354-AECD-4096-9591-ABE307AAFB77@isoc.be> Message-ID: <1368433854.68757.YahooMailNeo@web172506.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Please add me to those .  I am volunteering as well. “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 ________________________________ From: Rudi Vansnick To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 12:05 Subject: Re: [governance] Update NomCom for Appeals Team renewal Dear Sala, You may add my name to the list of volunteers. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Op 12-mei-2013, om 06:28 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende geschreven: Dear All, > > >Warm Greetings to you all. This is to advise that we need eleven (11) more names/volunteers before we can facilitate the draw. Thanks to all those for volunteering and the current list of names are as follows:- > > > > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar  > 2) Jeremy Malcolm  > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche  > 4) Kerry Brown  > 5) Avri Doria  > 6) Sarah Kiden  > 7) Shaila Mistry  > 8) José Francisco Callo Romero  > 9) Carlos Vera Quintana  >10) Izumi AIZU  >11) Adam Peake  >12) Angela Daly  >13) Mwendwa Kivuva >14) Keith Davidson > > >Kind Regards, >Sala > > >> >>On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>[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 >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>P.O. Box 17862 >>Suva >>Fiji >> >> >>Twitter: @SalanietaT >>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Tel: +679 3544828 >>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >>  >> >> > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >  > > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 04:41:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:41:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals Message-ID: <20130513104146.02a9ad14@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all According to by current best understanding (comments welcome!!!) here's the current status and thoughts on what may be a reasonable path forward, in regard to the various pending proposals for IGC statements. I've tried to sort them in order of urgency. 1) Proposal to endorse the BestBits statement on WTPF No drafting of a statement text required (IGC would simply sign on to the statement that has already been drafted.) Several IGC members have expressed support, no-one has opposed (yet?) I think that it is reasonable for the coordinators to set a deadline by which any opposition would need to be voiced, and if then no opposition is voiced by that deadline, the proposal will be deemed to have been approved by consensus. 2) Proposal for an IGC letter to request general openness of WGEC to silent observers. Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and we can move on from there. 3) Open letter to IGC endorsing criticism of digital restrictions management in HTml standards Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and we can move on from there. 4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a "public good" perspective of the Internet. The has been significant discussion and a draft text has been developed. There is not full consensus in support of this draft text. As most members of the caucus have been silent and only very few have voiced opposition, it is not clear from the discussions whether there is rough consensus. Those who oppose the draft statement have been invited to propose textual changes that would take their concerns into consideration and move the proposal closer to full consensus. I think that a reasonable path forward would be for the coordinators to set a deadline by which those who still oppose the current draft are invited to propose changes that could potentially bring us closer to full consensus. If no such changes are proposed by that deadline, it would then be appropriate to organize a poll to help determine whether there is rough consensus. 4) Proposed statement on RFC 6852 No text has been proposed yet. If someone wishes to move work on this forward, please say so, and I'll set up a work area for an initial informal drafting process, the result of which can thereafter be the starting point of a formal consensus process. Have I forgotten something? 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 Mon May 13 04:44:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:44:02 +0200 Subject: Fw: [governance] Statement on WTPF Message-ID: <20130513104402.18ffdad7@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy, by what day and time should a potential IGC decision to endorse this have been made, in order to still be maximally useful? Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:38:42 +0200 Von: Norbert Bollow An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Statement on WTPF [with IGC coordinator hat on] Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, > >> or just organizations with paid staff? > > > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression > > came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Full text is below: > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the > ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to > implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and > protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in > particular freedom of expression. > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These > begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key > internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; > the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of > transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to > address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move > forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring > to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF > facilitate civil society’s participation as an independent and > authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring > all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the > national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for > civil society to express their views, for example through an online > platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through > speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as > providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the > WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. > We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these > policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve > the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public > interest and fundamental human rights. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 13 04:47:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:47:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals In-Reply-To: <20130513104146.02a9ad14@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130513104146.02a9ad14@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: What is the current text of "4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a "public good" perspective of the Internet." Discussion seems about equal for and against both the text and how it might be used. Adam On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > According to by current best understanding (comments welcome!!!) here's > the current status and thoughts on what may be a reasonable path > forward, in regard to the various pending proposals for IGC statements. > > I've tried to sort them in order of urgency. > > > 1) Proposal to endorse the BestBits statement on WTPF > > No drafting of a statement text required (IGC would simply sign on to > the statement that has already been drafted.) > > Several IGC members have expressed support, no-one has opposed (yet?) > > I think that it is reasonable for the coordinators to set a deadline > by which any opposition would need to be voiced, and if then no > opposition is voiced by that deadline, the proposal will be deemed to > have been approved by consensus. > > > 2) Proposal for an IGC letter to request general openness of WGEC to > silent observers. > > Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be > particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure > is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and > we can move on from there. > > > 3) Open letter to IGC endorsing criticism of digital restrictions > management in HTml standards > > Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be > particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure > is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and > we can move on from there. > > > 4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a "public good" perspective of the > Internet. > > The has been significant discussion and a draft text has been developed. > There is not full consensus in support of this draft text. As most > members of the caucus have been silent and only very few have voiced > opposition, it is not clear from the discussions whether there is > rough consensus. Those who oppose the draft statement have been > invited to propose textual changes that would take their concerns into > consideration and move the proposal closer to full consensus. > > I think that a reasonable path forward would be for the coordinators > to set a deadline by which those who still oppose the current draft > are invited to propose changes that could potentially bring us closer > to full consensus. If no such changes are proposed by that deadline, it > would then be appropriate to organize a poll to help determine whether > there is rough consensus. > > > 4) Proposed statement on RFC 6852 > > No text has been proposed yet. > > If someone wishes to move work on this forward, please say so, and > I'll set up a work area for an initial informal drafting process, the > result of which can thereafter be the starting point of a formal > consensus process. > > > Have I forgotten something? > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 13 04:53:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:53:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130513105343.09c489ae@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > good point, but re; > > > Further, those who hold the keys to those mechanisms (in particular, > > the encryption keys) are not likely to allow them be used on Free > > Software operating systems > > Is this really the case? In view of all the effort that has gone into developing and deploying "trusted platform module" hardware to support locking things down, I think it extremely implausible that the proponents of DRM would allow the glaring hole in the fence around DRM-encumbered content to exist that would be constituted by allowed the locked-down content to be accessed on Free Software operating systems -- unless of course perhaps temporarily for tactical reasons during initial phases of marketing the stuff before it has become generally accepted (in order to minimize the opposition) or because they're forced to do so by regulation (but in view of the generally low market share of Free Software operating systems, how likely is it for governments to take regularatory action to prevent the extinction of Free Software operating systems as a viable option for general purpose use?) 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 13 04:54:46 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:54:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130513104402.18ffdad7@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130513104402.18ffdad7@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <15633751-67BF-4F72-BF8C-1A3476A46422@ciroap.org> On 13/05/2013, at 10:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > by what day and time should a potential IGC decision to endorse this > have been made, in order to still be maximally useful? The WTPF begins tomorrow, so, by the end of today. As this may not be feasible, the option of individual endorsements remains. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon May 13 05:07:41 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 21:07:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <15633751-67BF-4F72-BF8C-1A3476A46422@ciroap.org> References: <20130513104402.18ffdad7@quill.bollow.ch> <15633751-67BF-4F72-BF8C-1A3476A46422@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3B7FFED9-05E9-446F-B670-E714DA23D723@gmail.com> Hi Jeremy, Kindly add my name to the currently list of endorsers: Sala Sent from my iPad On May 13, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/05/2013, at 10:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> by what day and time should a potential IGC decision to endorse this >> have been made, in order to still be maximally useful? > > > The WTPF begins tomorrow, so, by the end of today. As this may not be feasible, the option of individual endorsements remains. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 13 05:27:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:27:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <15633751-67BF-4F72-BF8C-1A3476A46422@ciroap.org> References: <20130513104402.18ffdad7@quill.bollow.ch> <15633751-67BF-4F72-BF8C-1A3476A46422@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130513112729.5f1c636d@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/05/2013, at 10:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > by what day and time should a potential IGC decision to endorse this > > have been made, in order to still be maximally useful? > > The WTPF begins tomorrow, so, by the end of today. As this may not > be feasible, the option of individual endorsements remains. Given that I've issued a formal "with hat on" call on Friday to voice any opposition, and no opposition has been voiced since then, I think that it may be appropriate to proceed to set the latest reasonably possible deadline and declare it a decision if no opposition is voiced by then. If however someone opposes, it is true that we won't have time to have any process for trying to resolve the concerns that would be raised, and/or have a rough consensus process, so in that case IGC won't be signing on. BTW for specificy, the statement is at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-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 nb at bollow.ch Mon May 13 05:45:26 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:45:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > If Members feel strongly about this, then perhaps joining the W3c > HTML5 WG might be more effective. It might be more effective still to do that *and* in addition write and dissiminate a statement that explains the concerns, as well as W3C's processes and the necessary skills for effective participation in W3C WGs, and calls on civil society organizations who agree with the points of concern to engage through the relevant processes of W3C. I agree that in comparison to actually working through the available processes, endorsing a petition is not likely to have a great effect. On the other hand, endorsing a petition is also much less work than engaging in a technical WG. So I think that the likely greater effectiveness of engaging in the HTML5 WG is not a valid reason for IGC not to endorse the petition, as was proposed. 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon May 13 05:55:21 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:25:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.c h> Message-ID: <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed decision? --srs (iPad) On 13-May-2013, at 15:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> If Members feel strongly about this, then perhaps joining the W3c >> HTML5 WG might be more effective. > > It might be more effective still to do that *and* in addition write and > dissiminate a statement that explains the concerns, as well as W3C's > processes and the necessary skills for effective participation in W3C > WGs, and calls on civil society organizations who agree with the points > of concern to engage through the relevant processes of W3C. > > I agree that in comparison to actually working through the available > processes, endorsing a petition is not likely to have a great effect. > On the other hand, endorsing a petition is also much less work than > engaging in a technical WG. > > So I think that the likely greater effectiveness of engaging in the > HTML5 WG is not a valid reason for IGC not to endorse the petition, as > was proposed. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon May 13 07:25:54 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:25:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chengetai Masango" > Subject: [igf_members] MAG Renewal > Date: May 13, 2013 1:10:16 PM GMT+02:00 > To: > > Dear All, > > As a quick response, please find below the list of incoming and outgoing MAG members including the stakeholder group they fall under. As many of you know some nominees can arguably claim to be from more than one stakeholder group and also get their names recommended by members of more than one stakeholder constituency. > > Incoming MAG Members > > Name > Stakeholder Group > Ms. Ebenmelu, Nkiru Lynda > Government > Mr. Kossi, Amessinou > Government > Mr. Chen, Hongbing > Government > Ms. del Castilho, Angelic > Government > Mr. Zafar, Iqbal Qadir > Government > Mr. Milashevsky, Igor > Government > Ms. Alexander, Fiona > Government > Ms. Ankhi, Das > Private Sector > Mr. Soboutipour, Shahram > Private Sector > Mr. Ala, Musi > Private Sector > Mr. Ryan, Patrick > Private Sector > Ms. Desiree, Zachariah > Civil Society > Ms. Cambronero, Fátima > Civil Society > Ms. Chalmers, Susan > Technical Community > Ms. Chaturvedi, Subi > Media /Civil Society > > > Outgoing MAG Members > > Mr. Hilali, Aziz > Government > Ms. Diop Diagne, Ndeya Maimouna > Government > Mr. Zhao, Chunlu > Government > Ms. Pineiro, Lorena > Government > Mr. Cecil McCain > Government > Mr. Dewapura, Reshan > Government > Mr. Khimchenko, Igor > Government > Ms. Dryden, Heather > Government > Mr. Masanobu, Katoh > Private Sector > Mr. Sha’ban, Charles > Private Sector > Mr. Jamil, Zahid > Private Sector > Ms. Warren, Jennifer > Private Sector > Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > Civil Society > Ms. Selaiman, Graciela > Civil Society > Ms. Nimpuno, Nurani > Technical Community > > > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 13 09:49:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:19:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> Message-ID: <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> On Sunday 31 March 2013 09:01 AM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Rashmi - for those who are following this, here is the link to the > ICANN independent objector's recent comment on closed generics: > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of having to do anything about them. But ok, let me give the IO the benefit of doubt... If the IO is indeed right that he cant object as per the limited criteria laid by ICANN for objections, than ICANN has to be wrong, Wrong in developing inappropriately limited criteria which can be grounds for objection against TLD allocation... Both cant be right! In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic' TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of 'technical' reasons are given why nothing can be done, including that it is too late to do anything.... Saving the ICANN boat from being rocked appears to be a bigger concern than protecting public interest. This over zealous in-group solidarity is one of 'ICANN community's' biggest failings. parminder > it is also worth looking at the opinions given in relation to > "controversial" gTLD applications such as dotgay and dotislam among > others: > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/home/ > Regards > Joy > > On 15/03/2013 3:15 a.m., Rashmi Rangnath wrote: >> All: >> >> I thought many of you may be interested in this application that >> Public Citizen filed opposing the National Association of Boards of >> Pharmacy's (NABP) application for the .pharmacy TLD. Public Citizen >> is concerned that the registration would allow the NABP to exclude >> licensed pharmacies located in Canada from acquiring domain names >> under .pharmacy. This would prevent access to affordable medicines >> for many in the US. >> >> A link to Public Citizen's comments is here: >> https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145-- >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rashmi >> >> Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff >> Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, >> D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRV635AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq8egH/2hQ1/NvJsIH1ru5F6hqOM19 > pUOTD9uEXYeONEO0oUOWiI/dQluR7aI4kWvFLOMtTlMklDtqfE7uAg1Q/sxZfTtC > yRms/I7BtyoeN7yyvEVF7hB+vZoxnQRdCDPAIqNCIuemHeR8cVI0SuTnIqvGkwTs > lbk/zlGXgtF3G5BUIW0t+uAkLlvz3KytxoEO70NsghZ6TUEXtPCRLjGNmmL9LfJO > H/BcvuEz2hSjaxhUlGeUAsr1mWoNJy2h2kgGJWyQFakjQDe/o7LYAg58zNQnZiDX > hWoGipCzvEWq24ykwc3kIU34Q/w8kJgt2oph9sVUloughyqabI4pFt+uie77Bmc= > =X6RY > -----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 mueller at syr.edu Mon May 13 10:11:09 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:11:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Parminder you have completely missed the point. In a rather disturbing way. > -----Original Message----- > It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk > responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that > 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how > the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of > having to do anything about them. The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic. He is correct. What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest" - an undefined and almost inherently undefinable term - and then impose it on us, without any process or any checks and balances. And you want this because YOU have decided that closed generics are bad. The distinction here is between rule of law and arbitrary rule. So you need to understand that "democratic governance" means neither rule of momentary majorities, mobs, or powerful individuals acting arbitrarily based on whatever they feel is in the public interest. It means laws and policies made through a representative and participatory process, constrained by due process and individual rights. It is disappointing that you just want a populist dictator to impose the 'right' decision, 'right' being defined as whatever you want. And of course, when someone exploits that arbitrary power to do something you don't like, you will scream about violation of process and how ICANN is undemocratic. But you are revealing your true colors here. It is in fact a common problem with so-called "progressives," they don't have a very deep understanding of how and why one needs to constrain power, they just believe that if you give the 'right people' with the right ideas (i.e., their ideas) absolute power then everything will be fine. > In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what > is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic' > TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone > else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of No, in the public comments it is obvious that the arguments against closed generics were weak and rhetorical. The arguments for allowing the closed generic model as one of many possible models of managing a TLD were clearly more intelligently argued. The anti-closed generic arguments relied entirely on fear-based claims about monopoly power which had no basis in economic facts or theory, or anti-corporate rhetoric, or the attempts of business competitors attempting to hamstring a rival. The whole thing was pretty comical. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 10:35:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 31 March 2013 09:01 AM, joy wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Rashmi - for those who are following this, here is the link to the >> ICANN independent objector's recent comment on closed generics: >> http://www.independent-**objector-newgtlds.org/english-** >> version/the-issue-of-closed-**generic-gtlds/ >> > > It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk > responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that 'closed > generic' TLDs are bad for public interest Maybe you should read it again? "Indeed, I have strong doubts that the question of closed gTLDs is related to the problematic of public order: the issue might be linked to commercial interests, it is not directly linked with the freedom of expression." > , but it is amusing how the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the > responsibility of having to do anything about them. > > But ok, let me give the IO the benefit of doubt... If the IO is indeed > right that he cant object as per the limited criteria laid by ICANN for > objections, than ICANN has to be wrong, Wrong in developing > inappropriately limited criteria which can be grounds for objection against > TLD allocation... Both cant be right! > sure they can. > > In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what is > called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic' TLDs are > not quite right some do, I'm not sure that is the majority view however. > but still insist that it is somehow someone else's responsibility to do > something about it... pot... kettle. You are welcome to file an objection to .pharmacy if you'd like. The way forward is outlined in the Guidebook. > All kinds of 'technical' reasons are given why nothing can be done, > including that it is too late to do anything.... Saving the ICANN boat from > being rocked appears to be a bigger concern than protecting public interest. public interest as you see it you mean. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 13 11:01:36 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:01:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] APPROVED: Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130513170136.6abb54c7@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of the urgency of this matter (WTPF is after all starting tomorrow), the co-coordinators have decided to call consensus on the proposal for IGC endorsement of this statement. In view of the absence of objections to the statement, and the fact that it has been before the IGC for more than 48 hours with a formal ("with hat on") call to voice any objections, we conclude that the conditions are satisfied to find that the statement has the support of the IGC. Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote on Fri, 10 May 2013 10:38:42 +0200: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > > > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: > > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this > > >> time, or just organizations with paid staff? > > > > > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either > > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression > > > came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. > > > > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! > > > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > > > Full text is below: > > > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to > > the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member > > states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and > > uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, > > in particular freedom of expression. > > > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. > > These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of > > key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in > > need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the > > promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather > > than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the > > Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to > > implement these opinions. > > > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s > > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In > > endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical > > that the WTPF facilitate civil society’s participation as an > > independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and > > future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on > > implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global > > levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express > > their views, for example through an online platform for comment > > that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights > > as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both > > remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. > > Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these > > opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it > > pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure > > that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner > > consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 13 11:06:02 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 00:06:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] APPROVED: Statement on WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130513170136.6abb54c7@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518B7190.6040700@ciroap.org> <518C5E1B.8070001@ciroap.org> <20130510103842.0c58bde3@quill.bollow.ch> <20130513170136.6abb54c7@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: The word "object" was changed. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > In view of the urgency of this matter (WTPF is after all starting > tomorrow), the co-coordinators have decided to call consensus on > the proposal for IGC endorsement of this statement. > > In view of the absence of objections to the statement, and the fact > that it has been before the IGC for more than 48 hours with a formal > ("with hat on") call to voice any objections, we conclude that the > conditions are satisfied to find that the statement has the support of > the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Norbert Bollow wrote on Fri, 10 May 2013 > 10:38:42 +0200: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Are there any objections to IGC endorsing this statement? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 10 May 2013 10:40:27 +0800 >> schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : >> >> > On 09/05/13 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > > On 09/05/13 17:16, william.drake at uzh.ch wrote: >> > >> BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this >> > >> time, or just organizations with paid staff? >> > > >> > > Individuals too, but there was no such limitation last time either >> > > (at least there wasn't meant to be, sorry if the wrong impression >> > > came across). Expect a link and call for endorsements tomorrow. >> > >> > Here is the link - please endorse if you agree, and share! >> > >> > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >> > >> > Full text is below: >> > >> > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to >> > the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member >> > states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and >> > uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. >> > >> > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet >> > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy >> > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, >> > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and >> > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, >> > in particular freedom of expression. >> > >> > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal >> > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. >> > These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of >> > key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in >> > need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the >> > promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather >> > than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the >> > Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to >> > implement these opinions. >> > >> > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General’s report’s >> > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet >> > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In >> > endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical >> > that the WTPF facilitate civil society’s participation as an >> > independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and >> > future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on >> > implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global >> > levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express >> > their views, for example through an online platform for comment >> > that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights >> > as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both >> > remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. >> > Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables >> > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. >> > >> > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts >> > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, >> > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these >> > opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it >> > pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure >> > that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner >> > consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 13 11:22:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:22:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130513152231.GA6017@hserus.net> parminder [13/05/13 19:19 +0530]: >But ok, let me give the IO the benefit of doubt... If the IO is >indeed right that he cant object as per the limited criteria laid by >ICANN for objections, than ICANN has to be wrong, Wrong in >developing inappropriately limited criteria which can be grounds for >objection against TLD allocation... Both cant be right! Do you propose that ICANN act as a censor? The same "public good" argument that you appropriate for this objection has been used by many other objectors, objecting to far more innocuous applications - which could themselves be seen to represent a public good like, say, free speech. >interest. This over zealous in-group solidarity is one of 'ICANN >community's' biggest failings. Or, perhaps, there is actually a consensus, but you happen to be part of a minority that does not share it. Just like in this community, come to think of it. srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 13 12:18:06 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:18:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS and civil society - workshop tomorrow in Geneva In-Reply-To: <9D661629-93ED-4C5A-92E4-CAFF55D40ACC@gmail.com> References: <9D661629-93ED-4C5A-92E4-CAFF55D40ACC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5191123E.50609@apc.org> Dear friends who will be in Geneva. Please do go to this if you can. Anriette _*Civil Society and WSIS+10*_ Tuesday May 14, 2013 9.00-10.45 Popov Room (Room B) *Summary* This workshop will discuss the initial results of research conducted by APC in 2012. The research project was conducted to respond to the opportunity provided by the WSIS+10 review to address two problems: the absence -in most parts of the world- of a people-centred approach to information society policy and regulation, and, the fragmentation of the communication rights movement which had mobilised so intensively to ensure that this approach characterised the outcomes of the WSIS. Information was gathered from organisations and individual activists involved in the WSIS and current global communications policy forums to gauge their perceptions on what changes have occurred since 2003 in their countries, regions, or areas of activity. The research assessed the progress and/or lack thereof in relation to communication rights activists vision and demands, particularly regarding developing countries and marginalised communities. *Schedule* 9.00 Introduction to the session and presentation of the speakers (Valeria Betancourt) 9.10 Presentation of the research (Alan Finlay) 9.30 Presentations from speakers (5 minutes each) 10.00 Discussion, final round on ideas to strengthen civil society participation in the development of inclusive, open, people-centred, and just information societies, and wrap up/final remarks *Panelists* * Renate Bloem, CIVICUS UN Representative, Switzerland * William Drake, International Fellow and Lecturer of The Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research at the University of Zurich, Switzerland * David Souter, Founder and Managing Director of ICT Development Associates, United Kingdom * Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Policy Officer of Consumer's International, Malaysia * Jac SM Kee, Women's Rights Programme Manager of the Association for Progressive Communications, Malaysia *Presenter* * Alan Finlay, Independent Consultant, Open Research, South Africa *Moderator * * Valeria Betancourt, Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager of the Association for Progressive Communications, Ecuador *About the Association for Progressive Communications* The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world.http://www.apc.org *Contact Information* If you have any questions or comments, please contact Valeria Betancourt (valeria at apc.org ) or Alexandra Groome (alexandra at apc.org) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS+10_WS_flyer-1.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 16690 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon May 13 15:37:37 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:37:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re UN/ITU Internet takeover, the sequel Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FE74F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-7000015259/ The article does spell Best Bits right : ) best, Lee -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon May 13 15:50:39 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:50:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> Message-ID: Estoy de acuerdo con una encuesta, de ese modo se obtendrá información necesaria para utilizar lo apropiado. *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/5/13 Suresh Ramasubramanian > That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without actually > understanding it in enough detail to make an informed decision? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-May-2013, at 15:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> If Members feel strongly about this, then perhaps joining the W3c > >> HTML5 WG might be more effective. > > > > It might be more effective still to do that *and* in addition write and > > dissiminate a statement that explains the concerns, as well as W3C's > > processes and the necessary skills for effective participation in W3C > > WGs, and calls on civil society organizations who agree with the points > > of concern to engage through the relevant processes of W3C. > > > > I agree that in comparison to actually working through the available > > processes, endorsing a petition is not likely to have a great effect. > > On the other hand, endorsing a petition is also much less work than > > engaging in a technical WG. > > > > So I think that the likely greater effectiveness of engaging in the > > HTML5 WG is not a valid reason for IGC not to endorse the petition, as > > was proposed. > > > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 13 16:07:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 01:37:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re UN/ITU Internet takeover, the sequel In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FE74F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FE74F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3F7C005C-A0E5-4BC4-95EB-A5CF8C946F87@hserus.net> And in other unrelated, or as a colleague here prefers to put it, tangential news, FAO is of the opinion that what the world needs is for more people to include insects in their diet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/should-we-eat-more-insects-the-u-n-thinks-so/ --srs (iPad) On 14-May-2013, at 1:07, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI, > > http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-7000015259/ > > The article does spell Best Bits right : ) > > best, > > Lee > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon May 13 16:10:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:10:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Message-ID: <68renyfpo83bj5wxg93cs1v3.1368475702721@email.android.com> Who in our caucus is participating in WWW 2013 in Rio? There will be workshops on this issue. --c.a. ps: I will not, as I have another commitment out of Rio. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Mensagem original -------- De : José Félix Arias Ynche Data: 13/05/2013 16h50 (GMT-03:00) Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian Assunto: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Estoy de acuerdo con una encuesta, de ese modo se obtendrá información necesaria para     utilizar lo apropiado.   Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/5/13 Suresh Ramasubramanian That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed decision? --srs (iPad) On 13-May-2013, at 15:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> If Members feel strongly about this, then perhaps joining the W3c >> HTML5 WG might be more effective. > > It might be more effective still to do that *and* in addition write and > dissiminate a statement that explains the concerns, as well as W3C's > processes and the necessary skills for effective participation in W3C > WGs, and calls on civil society organizations who agree with the points > of concern to engage through the relevant processes of W3C. > > I agree that in comparison to actually working through the available > processes, endorsing a petition is not likely to have a great effect. > On the other hand, endorsing a petition is also much less work than > engaging in a technical WG. > > So I think that the likely greater effectiveness of engaging in the > HTML5 WG is not a valid reason for IGC not to endorse the petition, as > was proposed. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 13 16:33:12 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 21:33:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 13:25:54 on Mon, 13 May 2013, William Drake writes >> Incoming MAG Members >> Ms. Chalmers, Susan Probably too controversial for me to post to the list, and I don't know the lady, but she seems to be yet another lawyer, with a "Tech" community label attached. Outgoing "tech" community person Nurani has a background in customer service and marketing. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon May 13 16:47:29 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:47:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Roland, It's a loss having Nurani leave... Nurani is with Netnod, a key player involved in peering, DNSSEC and the technical community. Netnod is highly respected in the technical community. http://www.netnod.se/about/staff-members/nurani-nimpuno http://www.netnod.se/about/organisation/background regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-05-13, at 4:33 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 13:25:54 on Mon, 13 May 2013, William Drake writes > >>> Incoming MAG Members >>> Ms. Chalmers, Susan > > Probably too controversial for me to post to the list, and I don't know the lady, but she seems to be yet another lawyer, with a "Tech" community label attached. > > Outgoing "tech" community person Nurani has a background in customer service and marketing. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon May 13 16:48:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:48:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message >, > at 13:25:54 on Mon, 13 May 2013, William Drake > writes > > Incoming MAG Members >>> Ms. Chalmers, Susan >>> >> > Probably too controversial for me to post to the list, and I don't know > the lady, but she seems to be yet another lawyer, with a "Tech" community > label attached. > She was the newly hired InternetNZ policy lead when I met here at the Nairobi IGF. They seem to like her in NZ, which is what is important. She seems to be doing a great job, and is from the ccTLD community. > > Outgoing "tech" community person Nurani has a background in customer > service and marketing. and RIR policy administration. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 13 16:55:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 02:25:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Second the comments on both, especially Nurani. --srs (iPad) On 14-May-2013, at 2:18, McTim wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 13:25:54 on Mon, 13 May 2013, William Drake writes >> >>>> Incoming MAG Members >>>> Ms. Chalmers, Susan >> >> Probably too controversial for me to post to the list, and I don't know the lady, but she seems to be yet another lawyer, with a "Tech" community label attached. > > > She was the newly hired InternetNZ policy lead when I met here at the Nairobi IGF. > > They seem to like her in NZ, which is what is important. She seems to be doing a great job, and is from the ccTLD community. > > >> >> Outgoing "tech" community person Nurani has a background in customer service and marketing. > > > and RIR policy administration. > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon May 13 17:22:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:22:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Hi Roland, Susan is actually with Internet New Zealand. She is also on the IGC list and I suspect in time you will soon meet her. She is involved in Internet Policy as well. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On May 14, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 13:25:54 on Mon, 13 May 2013, William Drake writes > >>> Incoming MAG Members >>> Ms. Chalmers, Susan > > Probably too controversial for me to post to the list, and I don't know the lady, but she seems to be yet another lawyer, with a "Tech" community label attached. > > Outgoing "tech" community person Nurani has a background in customer service and marketing. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 13 20:57:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:57:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal In-Reply-To: <5189C392.7050204@communisphere.com> References: <20130502121555.22e3bac3@quill.bollow.ch> <5189C392.7050204@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <013301ce503e$12a65c50$37f314f0$@gmail.com> I'll volunteer if needed. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for Appeals Team renewal Thomas Lowenhaupt will serve on the Appeals Team if selected. On 5/2/2013 6:15 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: [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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon May 13 22:03:41 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:03:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the lottery. We need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of volunteers as at today: * 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar 2) Jeremy Malcolm 3) José Félix Arias Ynche 4) Kerry Brown 5) Avri Doria 6) Sarah Kiden 7) Shaila Mistry 8)Deirdre Williams 9) José Francisco Callo Romero 10) Carlos Vera Quintana 11) Izumi AIZU 12) Adam Peake 13) Angela Daly 14) Mwendwa Kivuva 15) Keith Davidson 16) Carlos Watson 17)Rudi Vansnick 18) Vincent Solomon 19)Michael Gurstein Thank you, Sala. * On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 14 02:04:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:04:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure Message-ID: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated Press in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013) The government would not say why it sought the Associated Press telephone records Continue reading the main story The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion". Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone lines . Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an overbroad collection". The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into information contained in an AP story last year. Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. Confidential sources The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. Continue reading the main story "Start Quote I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation" Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder . "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury approved the subpoenas. News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our correspondent adds. 'Press intimidation' Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the seizure of records. "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of "press intimidation". In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _67586307_67586302.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 14 05:04:48 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:04:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 16:47:29 on Mon, 13 May 2013, Robert Guerra writes >It's a loss having Nurani leave... It's not my place to comment on the quality of the contributions made by individuals (and I have known Nurani for many years in several parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic community". If lawyers from the Technical Community are allowed, why not lawyers from the Academic community? Disclaimer: By training I'm an engineer who has built networks, and has learnt a little law later in life. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 14 05:09:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 02:09:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> Roland Perry [14/05/13 10:04 +0100]: >parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier >discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether >in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic >community". Which was a needless controversy that should not be raked up further -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Tue May 14 05:17:26 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:17:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0000013ea2547fdb-a0932652-de19-4309-a0de-6796686fefd6-000000@email.amazonses.com> +1 On 14 May 2013, at 11:09, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Roland Perry [14/05/13 10:04 +0100]: >> parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic community". > > Which was a needless controversy that should not be raked up further > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 14 05:26:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:26:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Suresh, please refrain from telling people that certain topics should not be discussed on this list. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Roland Perry [14/05/13 10:04 +0100]: > >parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier > >discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether > >in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic > >community". > > Which was a needless controversy that should not be raked up further -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue May 14 05:46:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 02:46:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> You will notice the difference between a suggestion, which I can make, and a "hat on" statement that you can make, and are apparently making now to tell me what to, and what not to discuss on this list. Anyway .. The previous email is merely my opinion - which I have stated before - that people are perfectly entitled to self identify themselves as belonging to a particular community, and we can no more question their credentials to belong, than, say, the ITU, or say an industry advocacy group, can question the credentials of any who self identify themselves as civil society and/or as members of this caucus. Policy experts from the technical community or academia, in this case - rather than say network engineers, protocol designers or tenured professors, have a perfect right - and a strong case - to self identify themselves with their respective communities. srs Norbert Bollow [14/05/13 11:26 +0200]: >[with IGC coordinator hat on] > >Suresh, > >please refrain from telling people that certain topics should not be >discussed on this list. > >Greetings, >Norbert > > >Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Roland Perry [14/05/13 10:04 +0100]: >> >parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier >> >discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether >> >in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic >> >community". >> >> Which was a needless controversy that should not be raked up further > >-- >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 14 05:52:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:52:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> Message-ID: <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> On 14/05/2013, at 11:04 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > It's not my place to comment on the quality of the contributions made by individuals (and I have known Nurani for many years in several parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic community". > > If lawyers from the Technical Community are allowed, why not lawyers from the Academic community? Point taken, but I want to say that I would much rather have Susan representing the technical community than some of the others who have been representing it on the MAG. I've worked with Susan on TPP advocacy on which she has done some amazing work, and she is a quite a kindred spirit with us compared to her brethren. For the record, those who haven't stepped down from the MAG since 2006 are Theresa Swineheart, Chris Disspain, Raul Echeberría and Nii Quaynor. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue May 14 06:47:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:47:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> On May 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/05/2013, at 11:04 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> It's not my place to comment on the quality of the contributions made by individuals (and I have known Nurani for many years in several parts of the ecocystem), rather I was harking back to earlier discussions about the technical and academic community, and whether in WSIS-speak that meant "engineers from the technical and academic community". >> >> If lawyers from the Technical Community are allowed, why not lawyers from the Academic community? > > > Point taken, but I want to say that I would much rather have Susan representing the technical community than some of the others who have been representing it on the MAG. I've worked with Susan on TPP advocacy on which she has done some amazing work, and she is a quite a kindred spirit with us compared to her brethren. For the record, those who haven't stepped down from the MAG since 2006 are Theresa Swineheart, Chris Disspain, Raul Echeberría and Nii Quaynor. > (ST) I don't think the profession or type of qualification matter, it is as long as the community regards you as it's representative. logically, it would appear that if you worked for a particular Organisation and that Organisation is deemed to be civil society, then regardless of whether one is an engineer or lawyer in that Organisation, they would by extension be deemed as being from Civil society. Similarly, so for technical Organisations. I hope you get a chance to meet and talk to Susan, she is an incredibly warm and intelligent person and an Internet policy expert and will no doubt enrich the MAG with her contributions and dynamism. > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 14 06:55:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:55:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... In-Reply-To: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> References: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130514125515.43f0be32@quill.bollow.ch> Riaz K Tayob wrote: > How does MS take this intimacy into account? > > Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 > Generally speaking, I think much of the support for multistakeholderism is not nearly cautious enough about potential problems of this kind, and the same can be said about most models of multistakeholder governance that are being proposed. For a more in-depth discussion, we need to distinguish between (attempts at) what might be called "representative multistakeholderism" (example of which are MAG, ECWG,…) and "open multistakeholderism" (e.g. IETF, the RIRs,…). With "representative multistakeholderism" I mean groups in which a limited number of seats are distributed to representatives of particular stakeholder categories who are then assumed to bring a reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives of that stakeholder category into the discussion. With "open multistakeholderism" I mean settings which are open to anyone coming in and fully participating. The assumption is that this set of self-selected participants will bring reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives into the discussion. In representative multistakeholderism, the selection processes are obviously critically important. The problem of potentially inappropriate "intimacy" now exists not only between government officials and lobbyists, but potentially also in regard to the selection processes, and in addition all stakeholder group representatives need to train themselves to avoid being inappropriately influenced. In open multistakeholderism, the risk does not occur that viewpoints may get excluded because those who have power over the selection processes might want to suppress them, or might be unduly influenced e.g. by lobbyists to exclude people who happen to represent inconvenient viewpoint. However it is still possible (and it certainly happens) that viewpoints may get suppressed in other ways. Mechanisms of such suppression include personal attacks, telling people that certain topics (which are inconvenient to some group) should not be discussed because they're so divisive or whatever, etc. It may be necessary to have posting rules and tell people to avoid kinds of postings, such as postings containing personal attacks, or postings that effectively say "topic X should not be discussed". Such posting rules do not constitute censorship, but quite the opposite. Censorship is an attempt to suppress (by means of control of communication media) the dissemination of some category of factual information and/or to suppress discussion of some category of topics. Reasonable posting rules aim to prevent such suppression from happening through interpersonal and group dynamic pressure. Even though IGC is designed to be a civil society entity, the diversity of civil society within itself is great enough that the considerations of the above paragraph are already fully applicable to this list... Greetings, Norbert ** Acronyms used: MAG=Multistakeholder Advisory Group ECWG=Enhanced Cooperation Working Group IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force RIR=Regional Internet Registry -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 14 07:27:13 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 06:27:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, I served on the previous Appeals Team, so it is not ideal to continue, as we look for alternates and inclusion. However, if you need names to fill the quota, I am happy to be included. Best, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 13 May 2013 21:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the lottery. We > need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of volunteers as at today: > > * > > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm > > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > > 4) Kerry Brown > > 5) Avri Doria > > 6) Sarah Kiden > > 7) Shaila Mistry > > 8)Deirdre Williams > > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > > 11) Izumi AIZU > > 12) Adam Peake > > 13) Angela Daly > > 14) Mwendwa Kivuva > > 15) Keith Davidson > > 16) Carlos Watson > > 17)Rudi Vansnick > > 18) Vincent Solomon > > 19)Michael Gurstein > > Thank you, > > Sala. > * > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 14 08:43:03 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, I volunteer to serve on the Appeals team. I have not participated on the previous ones. Thank you Marília On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Sala, > I served on the previous Appeals Team, so it is not ideal to continue, as > we look for alternates and inclusion. However, if you need names to fill > the quota, I am happy to be included. > Best, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > DiploFoundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > On 13 May 2013 21:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the lottery. We >> need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of volunteers as at today: >> >> * >> >> 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar >> >> 2) Jeremy Malcolm >> >> 3) José Félix Arias Ynche >> >> 4) Kerry Brown >> >> 5) Avri Doria >> >> 6) Sarah Kiden >> >> 7) Shaila Mistry >> >> 8)Deirdre Williams >> >> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero >> >> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana >> >> 11) Izumi AIZU >> >> 12) Adam Peake >> >> 13) Angela Daly >> >> 14) Mwendwa Kivuva >> >> 15) Keith Davidson >> >> 16) Carlos Watson >> >> 17)Rudi Vansnick >> >> 18) Vincent Solomon >> >> 19)Michael Gurstein >> >> Thank you, >> >> Sala. >> * >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 14 08:43:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:43:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals In-Reply-To: References: <20130513104146.02a9ad14@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130514144328.73f894f2@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > What is the current text of "4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a > "public good" perspective of the Internet." """ We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. This will inter alia help to promote the Internet as a vehicle for free expression and free association, and for free flow of information, knowledge and ideas. """ 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 Tue May 14 08:46:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:46:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130514144642.703070bf@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hello Marília Are you volunteering for the Appeals team itself or for the NomCom that will select the appeals team? Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:03 -0300 schrieb Marilia Maciel : > Dear Sala, > > I volunteer to serve on the Appeals team. I have not participated on > the previous ones. > > Thank you > Marília > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > I served on the previous Appeals Team, so it is not ideal to > > continue, as we look for alternates and inclusion. However, if you > > need names to fill the quota, I am happy to be included. > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > DiploFoundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > ** > > ** > > > > > > On 13 May 2013 21:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the > >> lottery. We need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of > >> volunteers as at today: > >> > >> * > >> > >> 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > >> > >> 2) Jeremy Malcolm > >> > >> 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > >> > >> 4) Kerry Brown > >> > >> 5) Avri Doria > >> > >> 6) Sarah Kiden > >> > >> 7) Shaila Mistry > >> > >> 8)Deirdre Williams > >> > >> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > >> > >> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > >> > >> 11) Izumi AIZU > >> > >> 12) Adam Peake > >> > >> 13) Angela Daly > >> > >> 14) Mwendwa Kivuva > >> > >> 15) Keith Davidson > >> > >> 16) Carlos Watson > >> > >> 17)Rudi Vansnick > >> > >> 18) Vincent Solomon > >> > >> 19)Michael Gurstein > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Sala. > >> * > >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow > >> wrote: > >> > >>> [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 > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> P.O. Box 17862 > >> Suva > >> Fiji > >> > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Tel: +679 3544828 > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 14 08:47:31 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:47:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > rote: > > (ST) I don't think the profession or type of qualification matter, it is as > long as the community regards you as it's representative. Do ppl "represent" on the mag? > I hope you get a chance to meet and talk to Susan, she is an incredibly warm > and intelligent person and an Internet policy expert and will no doubt > enrich the MAG with her contributions and dynamism. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 14 08:54:56 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:54:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: <20130514144642.703070bf@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130514144642.703070bf@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, I just want to be useful, really, but to my understanding Sala is now asking for volunteers to the NomCom that will select the appeals team, is that it? Sorry if I did not express myself correctly before. Best, Marília On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Hello Marília > > Are you volunteering for the Appeals team itself or for the NomCom > that will select the appeals team? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Tue, 14 May 2013 09:43:03 -0300 > schrieb Marilia Maciel : > > > Dear Sala, > > > > I volunteer to serve on the Appeals team. I have not participated on > > the previous ones. > > > > Thank you > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sala, > > > I served on the previous Appeals Team, so it is not ideal to > > > continue, as we look for alternates and inclusion. However, if you > > > need names to fill the quota, I am happy to be included. > > > Best, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > DiploFoundation > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > ** > > > ** > > > > > > > > > On 13 May 2013 21:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear All, > > >> > > >> Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the > > >> lottery. We need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of > > >> volunteers as at today: > > >> > > >> * > > >> > > >> 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > >> > > >> 2) Jeremy Malcolm > > >> > > >> 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > > >> > > >> 4) Kerry Brown > > >> > > >> 5) Avri Doria > > >> > > >> 6) Sarah Kiden > > >> > > >> 7) Shaila Mistry > > >> > > >> 8)Deirdre Williams > > >> > > >> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > > >> > > >> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > > >> > > >> 11) Izumi AIZU > > >> > > >> 12) Adam Peake > > >> > > >> 13) Angela Daly > > >> > > >> 14) Mwendwa Kivuva > > >> > > >> 15) Keith Davidson > > >> > > >> 16) Carlos Watson > > >> > > >> 17)Rudi Vansnick > > >> > > >> 18) Vincent Solomon > > >> > > >> 19)Michael Gurstein > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Sala. > > >> * > > >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> [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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >> P.O. Box 17862 > > >> Suva > > >> Fiji > > >> > > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> Tel: +679 3544828 > > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 14 08:59:43 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:59:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C at ciroap.org>, at 11:52:11 on Tue, 14 May 2013, Jeremy Malcolm writes >>If lawyers from the Technical Community are allowed, why not lawyers >>from the Academic community? > >Point taken, but I want to say that I would much rather have Susan >representing the technical community than some of the others who have >been representing it on the MAG. That sounds like you *are* prepared to comment on the quality of contributions, which is an entirely different discussion. Do you think some of the "others" have done a poor job advocating for the technical community? I haven't participated in an IGF or prep meeting for over two years now, so don't have an opinion on the matter. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Tue May 14 09:04:54 2013 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:04:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51923676.3040108@colnodo.apc.org> Dear Salanieta, I volunteer for the NomCom for Appeals Team. Best, Julián El 13/05/13 21:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro escribió: > Dear All, > > Firstly thank you to all those that have volunteered for the lottery. > We need 6 more volunteers. Kindly find the list of volunteers as at today: > > * > > 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm > > 3) José Félix Arias Ynche > > 4) Kerry Brown > > 5) Avri Doria > > 6) Sarah Kiden > > 7) Shaila Mistry > > 8)Deirdre Williams > > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > > 11) Izumi AIZU > > 12) Adam Peake > > 13) Angela Daly > > 14) Mwendwa Kivuva > > 15) Keith Davidson > > 16) Carlos Watson > > 17)Rudi Vansnick > > 18) Vincent Solomon > > 19)Michael Gurstein > > > Thank you, > > Sala. > * > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > [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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 14 09:10:10 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:10:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9C420378-FD73-4CE7-8D9F-C8D24C951AD5@ciroap.org> On 14/05/2013, at 2:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Point taken, but I want to say that I would much rather have Susan representing the technical community than some of the others who have been representing it on the MAG. > > That sounds like you *are* prepared to comment on the quality of contributions, which is an entirely different discussion. > > Do you think some of the "others" have done a poor job advocating for the technical community? I haven't participated in an IGF or prep meeting for over two years now, so don't have an opinion on the matter. I do, but sorry Roland, I'm not going to take the bait and vent about that here, because it will definitely precipitate a flame war. :-) -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 14 09:12:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:12:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal [6 more volunteers needed] In-Reply-To: References: <20130514144642.703070bf@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130514151232.299c1788@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hi Marília Nothing to apologize for, I just wanted to make sure before we put you on the list of NomCom volunteers. Thank you so much for volunteering! I've added your name to the list of volunteers from which the voting members of the NomCom will be randomly chosen; that will take place during the second half of May 2013. Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 14 May 2013 09:54:56 -0300 schrieb Marilia Maciel : > Hi Norbert, > > I just want to be useful, really, but to my understanding Sala is now > asking for volunteers to the NomCom that will select the appeals > team, is that it? Sorry if I did not express myself correctly before. > > Best, > Marília -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 14 09:40:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <9C420378-FD73-4CE7-8D9F-C8D24C951AD5@ciroap.org> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <9C420378-FD73-4CE7-8D9F-C8D24C951AD5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13ea3450d1d.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> A bit too late for that especially as you named certain current mag members whose style of functioning you might possibly disagree with? --srs (htc one x) On 14 May 2013 6:40:10 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/05/2013, at 2:59 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: > > >> Point taken, but I want to say that I would much rather have Susan > representing the technical community than some of the others who have been > representing it on the MAG. > > That sounds like you *are* prepared to comment on the quality of > contributions, which is an entirely different discussion. > > Do you think some of the "others" have done a poor job advocating for the > technical community? I haven't participated in an IGF or prep meeting for > over two years now, so don't have an opinion on the matter. > > I do, but sorry Roland, I'm not going to take the bait and vent about that > here, because it will definitely precipitate a flame war. :-) > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue May 14 10:22:41 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:22:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals In-Reply-To: <20130514144328.73f894f2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130513104146.02a9ad14@quill.bollow.ch> ,<20130514144328.73f894f2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21939A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> While I might quibble with a few words, I still like it. Even if IGC may perhaps not agree to support the public good (which is kind of sad, but anyway): Janet, please plan to fold into WiGiT v0.3 at an appropriate spot. (FYI, Janet is a star iSchool doc student and member of P2030.4, IEEE Smart Grid Interoperability working group, which meets next week and which we will sync with v0.3.) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals Adam Peake wrote: > What is the current text of "4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a > "public good" perspective of the Internet." """ We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. This will inter alia help to promote the Internet as a vehicle for free expression and free association, and for free flow of information, knowledge and ideas. """ 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 Tue May 14 11:12:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:12:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> My congratulations to those chosen from all stakeholder groups to the MAG. One observation however, based on a summary review of the list provided by Bill--of the five individuals selected to the MAG to represent CS, all are women and 4 of the 5 are from Latin America or the Caribbean. I'm assuming that the UN in its wisdom (appropriately) applied criteria to ensure gender and regional balance; however, rather than applying these criteria within each stakeholder group they appeared to apply these to the MAG as a whole; which given significant longstanding gender and regional biases in other of the stakeholder groups, evidently resulted in the rather odd absence of representivity within CS including an absence of representation from Africa, Europe and North America among other anomalies. M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue May 14 12:02:08 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:02:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael actually, I support your point, and I really did not want to raise any comment on this point. But it is so obvious that it should be emphasized. 2013/5/14 michael gurstein > My congratulations to those chosen from all stakeholder groups to the MAG. > > One observation however, based on a summary review of the list provided by > Bill--of the five individuals selected to the MAG to represent CS, all are > women and 4 of the 5 are from Latin America or the Caribbean. > > I'm assuming that the UN in its wisdom (appropriately) applied criteria to > ensure gender and regional balance; however, rather than applying these > criteria within each stakeholder group they appeared to apply these to the > MAG as a whole; which given significant longstanding gender and regional > biases in other of the stakeholder groups, evidently resulted in the rather > odd absence of representivity within CS including an absence of > representation from Africa, Europe and North America among other anomalies. > > M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 14 12:26:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 21:56:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> On Monday 13 May 2013 07:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder you have completely missed the point. In a rather disturbing way. > >> -----Original Message----- >> It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk >> responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that >> 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how >> the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of >> having to do anything about them. > The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic. > He is correct. [parminder] Pl see my email. I said, either IO is wrong (he applied creteria inappropriately) or ICANN is wrong to have laid inappropriate and insufficient creteria...... > What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest" [parminder] I can easily relieve you of this particular disturbance.... I am no great believer in 'experts' deciding such major things . Such so called 'independent' objectors or arbitrators have a very limited role, if any, in my democratic scheme of things..... But maybe, the community criterion could have been applied..... English speaking people constitute a community whose collective rights are compromised by allowing, for instance. the products of Amazon such close exclusive association with the word 'book' which is so widely used in a different meaning by this community..... But the IO chose not to apply the criterion...... But IMHO such 'independent experts' mostly do not give rulings that could upset things too much - and an adverse ruling would have had too far reaching an impact on ICANN... > - an undefined and almost inherently undefinable term [parminder] A polity's essential job is to define and determine "public interest" in a given context...... In the same way as the essential task of the institution of market is to determine the appropriate 'exchange value' of anything.....No institution does thus essential tasks perfectly... but these terms do not lose meaning becuase of that. It is just your deep anti-governmentalism speaking here. > - and then impose it on us, without any process or any checks and balances. And you want this because YOU have decided that closed generics are bad. [parminder] In fact, it is you who have 'decided' that 'public interest' being indefinable should not be spoken of, whereby I cant understand what are we doing at all in what is supposed to be a political space. > > The distinction here is between rule of law and arbitrary rule. So you need to understand that "democratic governance" means neither rule of momentary majorities, mobs, or powerful individuals acting arbitrarily based on whatever they feel is in the public interest. It means laws and policies made through a representative and participatory process, [parminder] Yes, lets discuss what is democracy... I agree it 'means laws and policies made through a representative and participatory process', which are apparently aimed at 'public interest', right! You seem to have earlier agreed that ICANN should stick to narrow technical policy stuff, and for wider public interest/ policy issues be guided by a framework provided from the outside. Am I right! Most times you seemed satisfied by the US legal system providing this larger framework, but I also noted that you recently agreed to some kind of multilateral system setting this framework (something you were also inclined to just after WSIS in the form of framework convention). That brings us to a very important context - the meeting of the WG on Enhanced Cooperation (EC) later this month. I see two sides of EC - one is the 'larger public policies' side and other is 'CIR oversight' part. On the side of 'CIR oversight' one of the biggest task is, and I quote Tunis agenda "the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". How do you propose these principles can and should be developed?If we can agree on that, or even make progress towards possible agreement,we will have made a great contribution to global IG. I request your comments on this . My problem is that the current default framework is the US establishment's thinking in the Internet area - which is that markets will take care of pubic interest. Period. . I dont agree with this framework... But that should not matter. The real problem is that this framework was never arrived at democratically... And since you insist on democracy, and I fully agree, lets find out the democratic means to arrive at these overall public policy principles for CIR management. What do you suggest? > constrained by due process and individual rights. It is disappointing that you just want a populist dictator to impose the 'right' decision [parminder] On the contrary, it if you who are rooting for the dictator - the US establishment, which is imposing its public policy framework on the whole world ... > 'right' being defined as whatever you want. [parminder] Just becuase US establishment's market fundamentalist stance for global IG suits you thinking and preferences . > And of course, when someone exploits that arbitrary power to do something you don't like, you will scream about violation of process and how ICANN is undemocratic. [parminder] I have several times pointed out that you, Milton, would never have agreed to any other country having the same level of unilateral control as US . Neither would you have countenanced even US control if by some magic it had been pro commons and public goods nature of the Internet ..... > But you are revealing your true colors here. [parminder] You dont even have reveal your true colors :) > It is in fact a common problem with so-called "progressives," they don't have a very deep understanding of how and why one needs to constrain power, they just believe that if you give the 'right people' with the right ideas (i.e., their ideas) absolute > power then everything will be fine. [parminder] OK, all progressives are stupid..... > >> In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what >> is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic' >> TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone >> else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of > No, in the public comments it is obvious that the arguments against closed generics were weak and rhetorical. The arguments for allowing the closed generic model as one of many possible models of managing a TLD were clearly more intelligently argued. The anti-closed generic arguments relied entirely on fear-based claims about monopoly power which had no basis in economic facts or theory, or anti-corporate rhetoric, or the attempts of business competitors attempting to hamstring a rival. The whole thing was pretty comical. [parminder] And neoliberals are all very intelligent....... With your permission, may I tap into your intelligence to know how should we develop "globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 14 13:16:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:46:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 08:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > My congratulations to those chosen from all stakeholder groups to the MAG. > > One observation however, based on a summary review of the list provided by > Bill--of the five individuals selected to the MAG to represent CS, all are > women and 4 of the 5 are from Latin America or the Caribbean. > > I'm assuming that the UN in its wisdom (appropriately) applied criteria to > ensure gender and regional balance; however, rather than applying these > criteria within each stakeholder group they appeared to apply these to the > MAG as a whole; which given significant longstanding gender and regional > biases in other of the stakeholder groups, evidently resulted in the rather > odd absence of representivity within CS including an absence of > representation from Africa, Europe and North America among other anomalies. This is what the WG on IGF Improvements sought, and I quote from its report..... (a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose lists of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical distribution. This will enable a wide range of diversity within the MAG, especially those groups which have been underrepresented in the MAG, and be sufficiently large to provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members. (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process that works best for their own culture and methods of engagement and which will ensure their self-management. (c) The contribution of lists of proposed candidates for each stakeholder group should not be restricted to one particular body. .................... (a) The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. (ends) The required transparency and documentation condition have not been fulfilled till now.... IGC must urgently write to UNDESA and IGF secretariat to do the needful, at the earliest. If CS isnt the one demanding fulfilment of transparency requirements I dont know who will... parminder > > M > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 14 13:37:07 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:37:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 13 May 2013 07:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder you have completely missed the point. In a rather disturbing way. > > -----Original Message----- > It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk > responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that > 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how > the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of > having to do anything about them. > > The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to > object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed > generic. > He is correct. > > > [parminder] Pl see my email. I said, either IO is wrong (he applied > creteria inappropriately) or ICANN is wrong to have laid inappropriate and > insufficient creteria...... Is there a zero chance that the IO is correct AND the Applicant Guidebook is appropriate and sufficient? Not even the remotest possibility?? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 14 15:14:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 21:14:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without > actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed > decision? What information is needed "to make an informed decision" beyond what is by now readily available? - the actual draft specification http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ - criticism from those who oppose DRM as a matter of principle: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/sign-on-against-drm-in-html - criticism from a knowledgeable supporter of DRM, and discussion in comments: http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ - my concerns about effects on Free Software OSes: http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-05/msg00164.html 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 14 17:44:51 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 17:44:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without >> actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed >> decision? > > What information is needed "to make an informed decision" beyond > what is by now readily available? > > - the actual draft specification http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ The draft is all you need. For all those who have been griping about the DRM aspects of it, they should probably read it first: "This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline." > > - criticism from those who oppose DRM as a matter of principle: > https://www.defectivebydesign.org/sign-on-against-drm-in-html but this is not DRM. > > - criticism from a knowledgeable supporter of DRM, and discussion in > comments: > http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ > > - my concerns about effects on Free Software OSes: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-05/msg00164.html red herring....conservative enough for you? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Tue May 14 18:31:42 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:31:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> Thank you Norbert for the resources. However, the last link pointed to the list archives and not any content that I could see. I would add that the EME proposal also represents problems for certain users with disabilities. It is a well known fact that DRM schemes are usually very problematic for many people with disabilities (Mike Gurstein's post yesterday regarding the saga that has become the WIPO Treaty for the Blind gives a good indication of how copyright holders are actively trying to limit fair use for people that are severely disadvantaged due to impairments). As pointed out by Pratik Patel (who is himself blind and an expert on technology accessibility issues) in the comments section of Manu's excellent post on the EME spec : "The current state of proprietary implementations by players such as Netflix makes it quite difficult for disabled people to access content via the web. The plugins, no matter how they’re designed, make for a poor user experience. If there is to be any benefit derived by this effort, it must be that browser implementations provide a consistently accessible and usable interface. Of course, since users are the enemy, this may not be the first thing that content providers and aggregaters are concerned about." - I have been a member of the HTML Working Group for the last 6 or 7 years now and I doubt the W3C will be swayed by moral or social arguments. I believe W3C wants [needs?] to offer something regarding DRM for audio and video content to some of its big name members (who are supporting this proposal) if they are ever to adopt HTML5 use for broadcasting audio and video content. But I also believe W3C would be more than happy to entertain any proposal that would be technically superior to the EME specification. Process has already been used to advance this spec to First Public Working Draft even though there is obviously not consensus in the working group and strong opposition outside the W3C. So basically, the best way to defeat this spec is to propose something better that will rally a majority of working group members. I do not believe it is possible to evacuate DRM support from HTML5 (and yes, regardless of what the spec says in intro, it *will* facilitate DRM, not to mention make it part of the core language of the Web, and unfortunately, in a rather inelegant and inefficient way) but it may be possible to propose something that will not lock out open source or assistive technologies. I realize the CSIGC is not the body to propose a technically superior alternative. But signifying its opposition to a spec that will have vast repercussions for the Web and its users in terms of access and fair use is, in my humble opinion, a step in the right direction and a show of support for those who would be willing to take on the task of a counter-proposal. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 14/05/2013 3:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without >> actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed >> decision? > What information is needed "to make an informed decision" beyond > what is by now readily available? > > - the actual draft specification http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ > > - criticism from those who oppose DRM as a matter of principle: > https://www.defectivebydesign.org/sign-on-against-drm-in-html > > - criticism from a knowledgeable supporter of DRM, and discussion in > comments: > http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ > > - my concerns about effects on Free Software OSes: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-05/msg00164.html > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 14 20:45:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 06:15:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <54C19B83-0811-4FD0-9F6C-21A832A42971@hserus.net> This below is a more than fair answer to my question However, as Catherine says, a technical spec needs to be defeated by alternate specs, or by poking holes in the existing spec, neither of which most people on this list will be able to do. The alternate is to sue them in some sort of public interest litigation but even that will be of dubious benefit. After that, a spec is a spec. It still needs adoption, and popular apps can refuse to support it. --srs (iPad) On 15-May-2013, at 4:01, Catherine Roy wrote: > Thank you Norbert for the resources. However, the last link pointed to the list archives and not any content that I could see. > > I would add that the EME proposal also represents problems for certain users with disabilities. It is a well known fact that DRM schemes are usually very problematic for many people with disabilities (Mike Gurstein's post yesterday regarding the saga that has become the WIPO Treaty for the Blind gives a good indication of how copyright holders are actively trying to limit fair use for people that are severely disadvantaged due to impairments). As pointed out by Pratik Patel (who is himself blind and an expert on technology accessibility issues) in the comments section of Manu's excellent post on the EME spec : > > "The current state of proprietary implementations by players such as Netflix makes it quite difficult for disabled people to access content via the web. The plugins, no matter how they’re designed, make for a poor user experience. If there is to be any benefit derived by this effort, it must be that browser implementations provide a consistently accessible and usable interface. Of course, since users are the enemy, this may not be the first thing that content providers and aggregaters are concerned about." - > > I have been a member of the HTML Working Group for the last 6 or 7 years now and I doubt the W3C will be swayed by moral or social arguments. I believe W3C wants [needs?] to offer something regarding DRM for audio and video content to some of its big name members (who are supporting this proposal) if they are ever to adopt HTML5 use for broadcasting audio and video content. But I also believe W3C would be more than happy to entertain any proposal that would be technically superior to the EME specification. Process has already been used to advance this spec to First Public Working Draft even though there is obviously not consensus in the working group and strong opposition outside the W3C. > > So basically, the best way to defeat this spec is to propose something better that will rally a majority of working group members. I do not believe it is possible to evacuate DRM support from HTML5 (and yes, regardless of what the spec says in intro, it *will* facilitate DRM, not to mention make it part of the core language of the Web, and unfortunately, in a rather inelegant and inefficient way) but it may be possible to propose something that will not lock out open source or assistive technologies. I realize the CSIGC is not the body to propose a technically superior alternative. But signifying its opposition to a spec that will have vast repercussions for the Web and its users in terms of access and fair use is, in my humble opinion, a step in the right direction and a show of support for those who would be willing to take on the task of a counter-proposal. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 14/05/2013 3:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> That would possibly be equivalent to endorsing something without >>> actually understanding it in enough detail to make an informed >>> decision? >> What information is needed "to make an informed decision" beyond >> what is by now readily available? >> >> - the actual draft specification http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ >> >> - criticism from those who oppose DRM as a matter of principle: >> https://www.defectivebydesign.org/sign-on-against-drm-in-html >> >> - criticism from a knowledgeable supporter of DRM, and discussion in >> comments: >> http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ >> >> - my concerns about effects on Free Software OSes: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2013-05/msg00164.html >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue May 14 23:38:28 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:08:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) -C On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights > seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney > client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster > that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities > even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... > > 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT > > Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure > [image: Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated Press > in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)] The government would not say why it > sought the Associated Press telephone records > Continue reading the main story > > The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of > its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented > intrusion". > > Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice > department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone > lines > . > > Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an > overbroad collection". > > The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. > > However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the > District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into > information contained in an AP story last year. > > Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that > foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. > Confidential sources > > The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had > informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had > been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. > Continue reading the main story > “Start Quote > > I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's > explanation” > > Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman > > Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were > involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. > > AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax > line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC > and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. > > "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection > of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr > Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder > . > > "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources > across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a > two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and > disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the > government has no conceivable right to know." > > It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the > duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury > approved the subpoenas. > > News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is > seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. > > The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of > classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people > suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our > correspondent adds. > 'Press intimidation' > > Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of > Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the > seizure of records. > > "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they > intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. > > Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary > Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these > allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." > > The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of > "press intimidation". > > In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia > insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, > federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". > > "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain > information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena > for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. > > "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and > deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public > interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the > fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _67586307_67586302.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 15 00:10:24 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 00:10:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: This isn't the venue for standing against that sort of thing...this is the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great > respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of > every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce > Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was > just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) > > -C > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights >> seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney >> client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster >> that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities >> even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... >> >> 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT >> >> Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure >> [image: Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated >> Press in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)] The government would not say >> why it sought the Associated Press telephone records >> Continue reading the main story >> >> The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of >> its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented >> intrusion". >> >> Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice >> department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 >> phone lines >> . >> >> Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an >> overbroad collection". >> >> The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. >> >> However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the >> District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into >> information contained in an AP story last year. >> >> Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen >> that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. >> Confidential sources >> >> The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had >> informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had >> been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. >> Continue reading the main story >> “Start Quote >> >> I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's >> explanation” >> >> Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman >> >> Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were >> involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. >> >> AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax >> line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC >> and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. >> >> "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection >> of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr >> Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder >> . >> >> "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential >> sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP >> during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering >> operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations >> that the government has no conceivable right to know." >> >> It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the >> duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury >> approved the subpoenas. >> >> News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is >> seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. >> >> The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of >> classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people >> suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our >> correspondent adds. >> 'Press intimidation' >> >> Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of >> Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the >> seizure of records. >> >> "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they >> intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. >> >> Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary >> Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these >> allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." >> >> The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of >> "press intimidation". >> >> In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia >> insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, >> federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". >> >> "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain >> information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena >> for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. >> >> "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and >> deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public >> interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the >> fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _67586307_67586302.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 00:14:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:44:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 --srs (iPad) On 15-May-2013, at 9:40, McTim wrote: > This isn't the venue for standing against that sort of thing...this is the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) >> >> -C >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... >>> >>> 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT >>> >>> Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure >>> >>> <_67586307_67586302.jpg> The government would not say why it sought the Associated Press telephone records >>> Continue reading the main story >>> The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion". >>> >>> Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone lines. >>> >>> Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an overbroad collection". >>> >>> The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. >>> >>> However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into information contained in an AP story last year. >>> >>> Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. >>> >>> Confidential sources >>> The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. >>> >>> Continue reading the main story >>> “Start Quote >>> >>> I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation” >>> >>> Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman >>> Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. >>> >>> AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. >>> >>> "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder. >>> >>> "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." >>> >>> It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury approved the subpoenas. >>> >>> News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. >>> >>> The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our correspondent adds. >>> >>> 'Press intimidation' >>> Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the seizure of records. >>> >>> "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. >>> >>> Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." >>> >>> The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of "press intimidation". >>> >>> In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". >>> >>> "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. >>> >>> "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed May 15 00:43:59 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:13:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm NOT against the US, FYI. In fact I feel what they've achieved is tremendous, its just that some of it tends to be lost from time to time. Where in my email did you find anything about down with the US, McTim/Suresh? -C On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: > This isn't the venue for standing against that sort of thing...this is the > CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great >> respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of >> every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce >> Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was >> just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) >> >> -C >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >>> How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights >>> seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney >>> client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster >>> that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities >>> even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... >>> >>> 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT >>> >>> Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure >>> [image: Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated >>> Press in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)] The government would not >>> say why it sought the Associated Press telephone records >>> Continue reading the main story >>> >>> The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of >>> its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented >>> intrusion". >>> >>> Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice >>> department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 >>> phone lines >>> . >>> >>> Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an >>> overbroad collection". >>> >>> The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. >>> >>> However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the >>> District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into >>> information contained in an AP story last year. >>> >>> Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen >>> that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. >>> Confidential sources >>> >>> The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it >>> had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack >>> had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. >>> Continue reading the main story >>> “Start Quote >>> >>> I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the >>> government's explanation” >>> >>> Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman >>> >>> Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were >>> involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. >>> >>> AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax >>> line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC >>> and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. >>> >>> "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection >>> of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr >>> Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder >>> . >>> >>> "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential >>> sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP >>> during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering >>> operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations >>> that the government has no conceivable right to know." >>> >>> It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the >>> duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury >>> approved the subpoenas. >>> >>> News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is >>> seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. >>> >>> The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of >>> classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people >>> suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our >>> correspondent adds. >>> 'Press intimidation' >>> >>> Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of >>> Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the >>> seizure of records. >>> >>> "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before >>> they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. >>> >>> Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary >>> Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these >>> allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." >>> >>> The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of >>> "press intimidation". >>> >>> In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia >>> insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, >>> federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". >>> >>> "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain >>> information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena >>> for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. >>> >>> "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and >>> deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public >>> interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the >>> fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _67586307_67586302.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 01:01:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:31:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: Not your email at all. regards --srs (iPad) On 15-May-2013, at 10:13, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I'm NOT against the US, FYI. In fact I feel what they've achieved is tremendous, its just that some of it tends to be lost from time to time. > > Where in my email did you find anything about down with the US, McTim/Suresh? > > -C > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: >> This isn't the venue for standing against that sort of thing...this is the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >>> Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) >>> >>> -C >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>>> How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... >>>> >>>> 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT >>>> >>>> Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure >>>> >>>> <_67586307_67586302.jpg> The government would not say why it sought the Associated Press telephone records >>>> Continue reading the main story >>>> The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion". >>>> >>>> Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone lines. >>>> >>>> Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an overbroad collection". >>>> >>>> The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. >>>> >>>> However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into information contained in an AP story last year. >>>> >>>> Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. >>>> >>>> Confidential sources >>>> The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. >>>> >>>> Continue reading the main story >>>> “Start Quote >>>> >>>> I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation” >>>> >>>> Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman >>>> Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. >>>> >>>> AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. >>>> >>>> "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder. >>>> >>>> "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." >>>> >>>> It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury approved the subpoenas. >>>> >>>> News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. >>>> >>>> The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our correspondent adds. >>>> >>>> 'Press intimidation' >>>> Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the seizure of records. >>>> >>>> "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. >>>> >>>> Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." >>>> >>>> The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of "press intimidation". >>>> >>>> In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". >>>> >>>> "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. >>>> >>>> "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 15 02:01:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:01:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> Whatever do you mean? On 2013/05/15 07:10 AM, McTim wrote: > .this is the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 02:16:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 23:16:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130515061640.GA6985@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [15/05/13 09:01 +0300]: >Whatever do you mean? >On 2013/05/15 07:10 AM, McTim wrote: >>.this is the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! He means your post should have been marked "Tangential" I dare say. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 15 02:44:24 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:44:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] WTPF Message-ID: Any news from Geneva? Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 15 02:57:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:57:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential - On Intellectual Property and the US - United States: Political corruption and the "free trade" racket Message-ID: <519331DF.3040307@gmail.com> [I am not sure that it can be said that Dean is anti-American, more like Lincoln or Jefferson who said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism! And Dean is one of the few economists who had an analytic to predict the crisis (not in timing of course, but that it was imminent). Most other economists relying on different analytics came up short, doing euclidean geometry in a non-euclidean world... but these kind of free trade arguments are perfectly understandable not because of their theoretical robustness but because economists pursuing their self-interest by selling pro-BigCorporate ideas because this makes money for them, gets them prestige, and it need not be right, merely plausible... ] *United States: Political corruption and the "free trade" racket* By Al Jazeera/Dean Baker*, Washington DC, 6 May 2013 In polite circles in the United States, support for free trade is a bit like proper bathing habits. It is taken for granted. Only the hopelessly crude and unwashed would not support free trade. There is some ground for this attitude. Certainly, the United States has benefited enormously by being able to buy a wide range of items at lower cost from other countries. However, this doesn't mean that most people in the country have always benefited from every opening to greater trade. And it certainly doesn't mean that the country will benefit from everything that those in power label as "free trade." That is the story we are seeing now as the Obama administration is pursuing two major "free trade" agreements that in fact have very little to do with free trade and are likely to hurt those without the money and power to be part of the game. The deals in question, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the US-European Union "Free Trade" Agreement are both being pushed as major openings to trade that will increase growth and create jobs. In fact, eliminating trade restrictions is a relatively small part of both agreements, since most tariffs and quotas have already been sharply reduced or eliminated. *Rather, these deals are about securing regulatory gains for major corporate interests. In some cases, such as increased patent and copyright protection, these deals are 180 degrees at odds with free trade. They are about increasing protectionist barriers.* *All the arguments that trade economists make against tariffs and quotas apply to patent and copyright protection.* *The main difference is the order of magnitude. Tariffs and quotas might raise the price of various items by 20 or 30 percent. By contrast, patent and copyright protection is likely to raise the price of protected items 2,000 percent or even 20,000 percent above the free market price.* Drugs that would sell for a few dollars per prescription in a free market would sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars when the government gives a drug company a patent monopoly. In the case of drug patents, the costs go beyond just dollars and cents. Higher drug prices will have a direct impact on the public's health, especially in some of the poorer countries that might end up being parties to these agreements. There are also a wide variety of regulatory issues that are being pursued through these agreements in large part because there would be difficulty getting them accepted through the normal political process. *For example, the sort of government-mandated Internet policing that was part of the shipwrecked Stop Online Piracy Act is likely to reappear in one or both agreements.* It is also likely that rules that limit the power of governments to restrict fracking could be in the agreements. Such rules could prohibit not only the federal government, but also state or county governments, from imposing restrictions designed to protect the public's health. These are the sorts of restrictions that may appear in the TPP and US-EU Free Trade Agreement. The reason for using tentative language is that none of the specifics of the deal have yet been made public. The Obama administration is negotiating these pacts in secret. It has made almost nothing about the negotiating process public and has shared none of the proposed text with the relevant committees in Congress. (Public Citizen has posted information on the TPP based on leaked documents.) *Incredibly, it has shared portions of the proposed TPP with the relevant industry groups.* While elected representatives in Congress may not be able to find out anything about proposed rules on drug patents or restrictions on fracking, Pfizer and Merck will have the opportunity to weigh in on patent rules and the major oil and gas companies will help to draft language on fracking that serves their interests. The idea is that once a deal is completed there will be enormous political pressure for Congress to approve it no matter what it contains. In addition to the campaign contributions that supporters of the deals will get from the special interest groups who stand to benefit, news outlets like the Washington Post will use both their news and opinion sections to bash members of Congress who oppose a deal. They will be endlessly portrayed as ignorant Neanderthals who do not understand economics. The reality, of course, is that it is the "free traders" who either do not understand economics or deliberately choose to ignore it. Many of the provisions that we are likely to see in these deals, like stronger patent protections, will slow growth and cost jobs. These deals will also lead to more upward redistribution of income. The more money that people in the developing world pay to Pfizer for drugs and Microsoft for software, the less money they will pay for the products that we export, as opposed to "intellectual property rights." These payments are great if you own lots of stock in drug or software companies, but for the vast majority of the nation's workers who are not big stockholders, extracting money from people in the developing world for these corporate giants is not good news. This is yet another case where the government is working for a tiny elite against the interests of the bulk of the population. And it is doing it in a way that would be difficult to caricature: making powerful corporate interests direct negotiating partners, while excluding democratically-elected representatives from the process. It is tempting to say that Washington couldn't get more corrupt, but it probably will. [* Dean Baker is a macro-economist and founder and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). This article was first published on Al Jazeera English, and is republished with permission of the author and acknowledgements. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/political-cor ruption-and-the-qfree-tradeq-racket and http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201342954234869993.html ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 15 03:00:24 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:00:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] WTPF References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319D5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, the WTPF - so far - moves forward in a rather uncotroversial way. There were no big conflicts in the general discussion and the first two opinions were adopted more or less without any big discussions or amdements. It remains to be seen what happens with the two opinions on EC and MS. The most controversail proposal comes from Russia but it is unclear whether the Russian delegation will present it and fight for it. Another proposal comes from Brazil but this is less controversial and the Brazilians want to water it down and to move towards consensus. Discussion on those two opinions will start this afternoon. \ More critical is WSIS 10+ and here in particular the discussion of a "beyond 2015" strategy. This is prepared in closed meetings among governments (ministers only) and in closed UNGIS meetings. UNGIS has meanwhiole about 30 members. It has published a joint statement but there is no procedure in place how the non-govermnmental stakeholders interact with this group of intergovernmental organsiations. We flagged this yesterday in a traditional Geneva Type CS lunch at the cafe in the CCIG (like in the "good old times") and we have started to talk to IGO people how this can be changed. There are some open plenaries about 2015+ so it is not too late. But we should start (within the IGC) to develop a "Strategy Paper"how we see the "Beyond 2015" plans. Waiting until Sharm el Sheikh, where the WSIS 10+ high level meeting takes place next spring, would be too late. Wolfgang ________________________________ From: apeake at gmail.com on behalf of Adam Peake Sent: Wed 5/15/2013 8:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] WTPF Any news from Geneva? Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 04:04:42 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:04:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <20130514094626.GB21329 at hserus.net>, at 02:46:26 on Tue, 14 May 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Policy experts from the technical community or academia, in this case - >rather than say network engineers, protocol designers or tenured >professors, have a perfect right - and a strong case - to self identify >themselves with their respective communities. I agree, although I've had some push-back in the past self-identifying myself as part of the NCUC community at ICANN (on behalf of one of my clients, a charity offering help to Internet users). It's mainly on behalf of that same client, that I participate here, by the way. However, my question wasn't really about that, but more to do with what "Academia" means in the context of being eligible for various Working Group roles. Until last year (when my children went up to University) for eight years I was on the management board of their High School. Meanwhile one of my clients was quite separately involved in defining the rules that the government [in the UK] required for filtering of the Internet supplied to schools - mainly to remove so-called 'adult' material). Does either of those qualify me as coming from the academic community? Perhaps the latter is more "Internet Technical community"? Do my children (as full time students, but neither of law nor networking) automatically come from the academic community? While I was working with RIPE NCC, I always found it interesting that several technicians working in the deployment of their national academic networks would self-identify as "government" (rather than "ISP"), on the grounds that the network was owned by the government. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 04:15:21 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:15:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <51927166.3070009 at itforchange.net>, at 22:46:22 on Tue, 14 May 2013, parminder writes > [I quote from the report of the] WG on IGF Improvements... > >(a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose lists >of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender >distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical >distribution. Where would I find the equivalent to the IGC, or to the fairly tightly-knit Technical Community, if I wanted to ask them to propose someone as an Academic Community representative? Or is that also done by the TC, and if that's so, would it indicate they are less interested in academic lawyers than in representatives of the operators of academic networks? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 15 04:23:03 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:23:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... In-Reply-To: <20130514125515.43f0be32@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> <20130514125515.43f0be32@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Norbert. MS certainly is an innovative approach. However to your categories we must add the issue of deliberative multistakeholderism... where it is not just the contest of interests - bargaining - but reasoned argument - deliberation - so as to harness the diversity of views to maximise success. That MS does not take this imbalance, formal equality has its limits, as real is a concern - particularly since BigCorporates organise at this level as well - it is not a matter of excluding them, but ensuring systems to ensure that this assymetry of power is dealt with through democratic countermajortarian principles. But with legitimacy treated lightly, the prospects of this seem dim. Then there is the fetish with inclusion. It is not regarded as ambivalent, but always good. Sometimes in democratic process exclusion may be preferable, for eg those who refuse to participate (as different from engaging with) in ICANN. Just some thoughts... Riaz On 14 May 2013 13:55, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > How does MS take this intimacy into account? > > > > Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 > > < > http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/another-industry-crony-at-the-fcc/print > > > > Generally speaking, I think much of the support for multistakeholderism > is not nearly cautious enough about potential problems of this kind, > and the same can be said about most models of multistakeholder > governance that are being proposed. > > For a more in-depth discussion, we need to distinguish between > (attempts at) what might be called "representative multistakeholderism" > (example of which are MAG, ECWG,…) and "open multistakeholderism" (e.g. > IETF, the RIRs,…). > > With "representative multistakeholderism" I mean groups in which a > limited number of seats are distributed to representatives of > particular stakeholder categories who are then assumed to bring a > reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives of that > stakeholder category into the discussion. > > With "open multistakeholderism" I mean settings which are open to > anyone coming in and fully participating. The assumption is that this > set of self-selected participants will bring reasonable > approproximation of the totality of perspectives into the discussion. > > In representative multistakeholderism, the selection processes are > obviously critically important. The problem of potentially inappropriate > "intimacy" now exists not only between government officials and > lobbyists, but potentially also in regard to the selection processes, > and in addition all stakeholder group representatives need to train > themselves to avoid being inappropriately influenced. > > In open multistakeholderism, the risk does not occur that viewpoints may > get excluded because those who have power over the selection processes > might want to suppress them, or might be unduly influenced e.g. by > lobbyists to exclude people who happen to represent inconvenient > viewpoint. > > However it is still possible (and it certainly happens) that viewpoints > may get suppressed in other ways. Mechanisms of such suppression > include personal attacks, telling people that certain topics (which are > inconvenient to some group) should not be discussed because they're so > divisive or whatever, etc. It may be necessary to have posting rules > and tell people to avoid kinds of postings, such as postings containing > personal attacks, or postings that effectively say "topic X should not > be discussed". Such posting rules do not constitute censorship, but > quite the opposite. Censorship is an attempt to suppress (by means of > control of communication media) the dissemination of some category of > factual information and/or to suppress discussion of some category of > topics. Reasonable posting rules aim to prevent such suppression from > happening through interpersonal and group dynamic pressure. > > Even though IGC is designed to be a civil society entity, the diversity > of civil society within itself is great enough that the considerations > of the above paragraph are already fully applicable to this list... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ** Acronyms used: > MAG=Multistakeholder Advisory Group > ECWG=Enhanced Cooperation Working Group > IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force > RIR=Regional Internet Registry > > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 04:30:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 01:30:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> Roland Perry [15/05/13 09:04 +0100]: >While I was working with RIPE NCC, I always found it interesting that >several technicians working in the deployment of their national >academic networks would self-identify as "government" (rather than >"ISP"), on the grounds that the network was owned by the government. Not particularly odd when you consider that the academic network personnel would get their paychecks from the government, report to a ministry bureaucrat, have government job titles and pay scales .. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 06:05:28 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:05:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <20130515083057.GA8918 at hserus.net>, at 01:30:57 on Wed, 15 May 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>While I was working with RIPE NCC, I always found it interesting that >>several technicians working in the deployment of their national >>academic networks would self-identify as "government" (rather than >>"ISP"), on the grounds that the network was owned by the government. > >Not particularly odd when you consider that the academic network personnel >would get their paychecks from the government, report to a ministry >bureaucrat, have government job titles and pay scales .. But when their presence gets published under "government", and most people looking at the statistic assume that "government" means regulator or GAC-type person, confusion can arise. Just as some assume that there will be mainly network engineers and professors in the "Technical and Academic community" roll. Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the dynamic of that). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 15 06:11:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:11:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <68renyfpo83bj5wxg93cs1v3.1368475702721@email.android.com> References: <68renyfpo83bj5wxg93cs1v3.1368475702721@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20130515121153.314a9df9@quill.bollow.ch> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Who in our caucus is participating in WWW 2013 in Rio? There will be > workshops on this issue. Carlos, thank you so much for pointing us to this! I have written to the organizers and asked whether these workshops would be webcast, and they've written back saying that yes, starting from today all sessions in the room "Alhambra I" (which includes both of the sessions related to the DRM issue) are webcast. (This seems to be not reflected on the website yet.) The relevant sessions are: Panel on “On line, collaborative, open Platforms for video on the web” Thursday, 16th, 18:00 -> 19:00 Rio de Janeiro time http://www2013.org/program/panel-on-on-line-collaborative-open-platforms-for-video-on-the-web/ Talking about DRM Friday, 17th 17:00 -> 18:30 Rio de Janeiro time http://www2013.org/program/talking-about-drm/ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 15 06:28:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:28:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Must the IGF adopt all the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements? Not clear on their status. Has there been adequate (open, transparent, inclusive) discussion of the WG's recommendations? Adam On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:16 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 14 May 2013 08:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > My congratulations to those chosen from all stakeholder groups to the MAG. > > One observation however, based on a summary review of the list provided by > Bill--of the five individuals selected to the MAG to represent CS, all are > women and 4 of the 5 are from Latin America or the Caribbean. > > I'm assuming that the UN in its wisdom (appropriately) applied criteria to > ensure gender and regional balance; however, rather than applying these > criteria within each stakeholder group they appeared to apply these to the > MAG as a whole; which given significant longstanding gender and regional > biases in other of the stakeholder groups, evidently resulted in the rather > odd absence of representivity within CS including an absence of > representation from Africa, Europe and North America among other anomalies. > > This is what the WG on IGF Improvements sought, and I quote from its > report..... > > (a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose lists of > candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender > distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical distribution. > This will enable a wide range of diversity within the MAG, especially those > groups which have been underrepresented in the MAG, and be sufficiently > large to provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members. > > (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process that works > best for their own culture and methods of engagement and which will ensure > their self-management. > > (c) The contribution of lists of proposed candidates for each stakeholder > group should not be restricted to one particular body. > > .................... > > (a) The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, > predictable, transparent and fully documented. > > > (ends) > > The required transparency and documentation condition have not been > fulfilled till now.... IGC must urgently write to UNDESA and IGF secretariat > to do the needful, at the earliest. If CS isnt the one demanding fulfilment > of transparency requirements I dont know who will... > > parminder > > > M > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 15 06:49:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:49:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... In-Reply-To: References: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> <20130514125515.43f0be32@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130515124928.3c3c0f69@quill.bollow.ch> Hi Riaz I think that all forms of multistakeholderism are supposed to be "deliberative multistakeholderism". (Is there any other kind?) The challenges are about preventing the deliberative processes from breaking down, which can happen in various ways. For example it can happen by not having a sufficient breadth of perspectives represented. In regard to inclusion, I think what is meant with inclusiveness of governance systems is all stakeholders who are potentially affected by the decisions that are made can get their concerns and viewpoints appropriately taken into consideration. This inclusiveness is *not* supposed to come with a requirement to actually use the technical system that is the subject of the governance process. For example, even if a stakeholder wants to use a domain name system that allows multiple different registries for the same TLD to exist, and thereupon creates and uses such a system, that stakeholder can still participate in ICANN deliberative processes. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronyms used: TLD=Top Level Domain ICANN=Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Riaz Tayob wrote: > Thanks Norbert. > > MS certainly is an innovative approach. However to your categories we > must add the issue of deliberative multistakeholderism... where it is > not just the contest of interests - bargaining - but reasoned > argument - deliberation - so as to harness the diversity of views to > maximise success. > > That MS does not take this imbalance, formal equality has its limits, > as real is a concern - particularly since BigCorporates organise at > this level as well - it is not a matter of excluding them, but > ensuring systems to ensure that this assymetry of power is dealt with > through democratic countermajortarian principles. But with legitimacy > treated lightly, the prospects of this seem dim. > > Then there is the fetish with inclusion. It is not regarded as > ambivalent, but always good. Sometimes in democratic process > exclusion may be preferable, for eg those who refuse to participate > (as different from engaging with) in ICANN. > > Just some thoughts... > > Riaz > > > On 14 May 2013 13:55, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > How does MS take this intimacy into account? > > > > > > Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 > > > < > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/another-industry-crony-at-the-fcc/print > > > > > > > Generally speaking, I think much of the support for > > multistakeholderism is not nearly cautious enough about potential > > problems of this kind, and the same can be said about most models > > of multistakeholder governance that are being proposed. > > > > For a more in-depth discussion, we need to distinguish between > > (attempts at) what might be called "representative > > multistakeholderism" (example of which are MAG, ECWG,…) and "open > > multistakeholderism" (e.g. IETF, the RIRs,…). > > > > With "representative multistakeholderism" I mean groups in which a > > limited number of seats are distributed to representatives of > > particular stakeholder categories who are then assumed to bring a > > reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives of that > > stakeholder category into the discussion. > > > > With "open multistakeholderism" I mean settings which are open to > > anyone coming in and fully participating. The assumption is that > > this set of self-selected participants will bring reasonable > > approproximation of the totality of perspectives into the > > discussion. > > > > In representative multistakeholderism, the selection processes are > > obviously critically important. The problem of potentially > > inappropriate "intimacy" now exists not only between government > > officials and lobbyists, but potentially also in regard to the > > selection processes, and in addition all stakeholder group > > representatives need to train themselves to avoid being > > inappropriately influenced. > > > > In open multistakeholderism, the risk does not occur that > > viewpoints may get excluded because those who have power over the > > selection processes might want to suppress them, or might be unduly > > influenced e.g. by lobbyists to exclude people who happen to > > represent inconvenient viewpoint. > > > > However it is still possible (and it certainly happens) that > > viewpoints may get suppressed in other ways. Mechanisms of such > > suppression include personal attacks, telling people that certain > > topics (which are inconvenient to some group) should not be > > discussed because they're so divisive or whatever, etc. It may be > > necessary to have posting rules and tell people to avoid kinds of > > postings, such as postings containing personal attacks, or postings > > that effectively say "topic X should not be discussed". Such > > posting rules do not constitute censorship, but quite the opposite. > > Censorship is an attempt to suppress (by means of control of > > communication media) the dissemination of some category of factual > > information and/or to suppress discussion of some category of > > topics. Reasonable posting rules aim to prevent such suppression > > from happening through interpersonal and group dynamic pressure. > > > > Even though IGC is designed to be a civil society entity, the > > diversity of civil society within itself is great enough that the > > considerations of the above paragraph are already fully applicable > > to this list... > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ** Acronyms used: > > MAG=Multistakeholder Advisory Group > > ECWG=Enhanced Cooperation Working Group > > IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force > > RIR=Regional Internet Registry -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 06:59:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:29:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC... In-Reply-To: <20130515124928.3c3c0f69@quill.bollow.ch> References: <518F588D.4000606@gmail.com> <20130514125515.43f0be32@quill.bollow.ch> <20130515124928.3c3c0f69@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Possibly - but when consensus evolves around a set of "rules of the road" as it were, it would be an interesting thought experiment to drive on the right side of the road in a location where everybody else drives on the left. Two alternatives for that - 1. Find and use a separate road that may not go to all the places you look to go, and hope that other individualists connect their own separate roads to yours to form a network or 2. A car crash and pileup --srs (iPad) On 15-May-2013, at 16:19, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hi Riaz > > I think that all forms of multistakeholderism are supposed to be > "deliberative multistakeholderism". (Is there any other kind?) The > challenges are about preventing the deliberative processes from > breaking down, which can happen in various ways. For example it can > happen by not having a sufficient breadth of perspectives represented. > > In regard to inclusion, I think what is meant with inclusiveness > of governance systems is all stakeholders who are potentially > affected by the decisions that are made can get their concerns > and viewpoints appropriately taken into consideration. This > inclusiveness is *not* supposed to come with a requirement to actually > use the technical system that is the subject of the governance > process. For example, even if a stakeholder wants to use a domain name > system that allows multiple different registries for the same TLD to > exist, and thereupon creates and uses such a system, that stakeholder > can still participate in ICANN deliberative processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ** Acronyms used: > TLD=Top Level Domain > ICANN=Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > Riaz Tayob wrote: > >> Thanks Norbert. >> >> MS certainly is an innovative approach. However to your categories we >> must add the issue of deliberative multistakeholderism... where it is >> not just the contest of interests - bargaining - but reasoned >> argument - deliberation - so as to harness the diversity of views to >> maximise success. >> >> That MS does not take this imbalance, formal equality has its limits, >> as real is a concern - particularly since BigCorporates organise at >> this level as well - it is not a matter of excluding them, but >> ensuring systems to ensure that this assymetry of power is dealt with >> through democratic countermajortarian principles. But with legitimacy >> treated lightly, the prospects of this seem dim. >> >> Then there is the fetish with inclusion. It is not regarded as >> ambivalent, but always good. Sometimes in democratic process >> exclusion may be preferable, for eg those who refuse to participate >> (as different from engaging with) in ICANN. >> >> Just some thoughts... >> >> Riaz >> >> >> On 14 May 2013 13:55, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> >>>> How does MS take this intimacy into account? >>>> >>>> Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013 >>>> < >>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/another-industry-crony-at-the-fcc/print >>> >>> Generally speaking, I think much of the support for >>> multistakeholderism is not nearly cautious enough about potential >>> problems of this kind, and the same can be said about most models >>> of multistakeholder governance that are being proposed. >>> >>> For a more in-depth discussion, we need to distinguish between >>> (attempts at) what might be called "representative >>> multistakeholderism" (example of which are MAG, ECWG,…) and "open >>> multistakeholderism" (e.g. IETF, the RIRs,…). >>> >>> With "representative multistakeholderism" I mean groups in which a >>> limited number of seats are distributed to representatives of >>> particular stakeholder categories who are then assumed to bring a >>> reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives of that >>> stakeholder category into the discussion. >>> >>> With "open multistakeholderism" I mean settings which are open to >>> anyone coming in and fully participating. The assumption is that >>> this set of self-selected participants will bring reasonable >>> approproximation of the totality of perspectives into the >>> discussion. >>> >>> In representative multistakeholderism, the selection processes are >>> obviously critically important. The problem of potentially >>> inappropriate "intimacy" now exists not only between government >>> officials and lobbyists, but potentially also in regard to the >>> selection processes, and in addition all stakeholder group >>> representatives need to train themselves to avoid being >>> inappropriately influenced. >>> >>> In open multistakeholderism, the risk does not occur that >>> viewpoints may get excluded because those who have power over the >>> selection processes might want to suppress them, or might be unduly >>> influenced e.g. by lobbyists to exclude people who happen to >>> represent inconvenient viewpoint. >>> >>> However it is still possible (and it certainly happens) that >>> viewpoints may get suppressed in other ways. Mechanisms of such >>> suppression include personal attacks, telling people that certain >>> topics (which are inconvenient to some group) should not be >>> discussed because they're so divisive or whatever, etc. It may be >>> necessary to have posting rules and tell people to avoid kinds of >>> postings, such as postings containing personal attacks, or postings >>> that effectively say "topic X should not be discussed". Such >>> posting rules do not constitute censorship, but quite the opposite. >>> Censorship is an attempt to suppress (by means of control of >>> communication media) the dissemination of some category of factual >>> information and/or to suppress discussion of some category of >>> topics. Reasonable posting rules aim to prevent such suppression >>> from happening through interpersonal and group dynamic pressure. >>> >>> Even though IGC is designed to be a civil society entity, the >>> diversity of civil society within itself is great enough that the >>> considerations of the above paragraph are already fully applicable >>> to this list... >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> ** Acronyms used: >>> MAG=Multistakeholder Advisory Group >>> ECWG=Enhanced Cooperation Working Group >>> IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force >>> RIR=Regional Internet Registry > > > -- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed May 15 07:42:42 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:42:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] On the Role of ICANN's GAC in "Internet Governance" Message-ID: <716C373E-73FD-4991-BD1F-E562C8792791@istaff.org> Internet Governance Folks - An interesting blog from Wout de Natris regarding the role of ICANN's GAC in "Internet Governance" - Note that this was in response and complimentary to Milton's blog regarding the GAC's role in ICANN's multistakeholder decision making processes - At heart of the matter may be the question of how does ICANN's role in critical Internet resource coordination compare to the greater scope of Internet Governance in general. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. This advice does not need to be duly taken into account in policy formation or adoption, nor does anyone need to be informed the reasons why it was not followed. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed May 15 07:57:23 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 08:57:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Message-ID: Great!! fraternal regards --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Norbert Bollow Data: 15/05/2013 7h11 (GMT-03:00) Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Who in our caucus is participating in WWW 2013 in Rio? There will be > workshops on this issue. Carlos, thank you so much for pointing us to this! I have written to the organizers and asked whether these workshops would be webcast, and they've written back saying that yes, starting from today all sessions in the room "Alhambra I" (which includes both of the sessions related to the DRM issue) are webcast. (This seems to be not reflected on the website yet.) The relevant sessions are: Panel on “On line, collaborative, open Platforms for video on the web” Thursday, 16th, 18:00 -> 19:00 Rio de Janeiro time http://www2013.org/program/panel-on-on-line-collaborative-open-platforms-for-video-on-the-web/ Talking about DRM Friday, 17th 17:00 -> 18:30 Rio de Janeiro time http://www2013.org/program/talking-about-drm/ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 15 08:52:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:52:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130515145238.318848aa@quill.bollow.ch> Catherine Roy wrote: > I would add that the EME proposal also represents problems for > certain users with disabilities. In my view, this is not an argument against the EME proposal as a whole, but just against the aspect of it that allows CDM to bypass the browser when Frames have been decrypted. > As pointed out by Pratik Patel (who is himself blind and an expert on > technology accessibility issues) in the comments section of Manu's > excellent post on the EME spec : > > "The current state of proprietary implementations by players such as > Netflix makes it quite difficult for disabled people to access > content via the web. The plugins, no matter how they’re designed, > make for a poor user experience. If there is to be any benefit > derived by this effort, it must be that browser implementations > provide a consistently accessible and usable interface. The EME spec could support this by specifying that the decrypted Frames must always be passed back to the browser. That would allow browsers to provide a consistent interface for assistive devices. It would also allow specialized accessibility-oriented software to play the role of the browser in relation to CDM. > I have been a member of the HTML Working Group for the last 6 or 7 > years now and I doubt the W3C will be swayed by moral or social > arguments. I believe W3C wants [needs?] to offer something regarding > DRM for audio and video content to some of its big name members (who > are supporting this proposal) if they are ever to adopt HTML5 use for > broadcasting audio and video content. I agree with your assessment of W3C; however I also see this as something that needs to be challenged. It is fundamentally anti-democratic when a key Internet governance institution is organized as a consortium so that a small number of industry members can --in total disregard of negative social consequences for the rest of the world-- essentially unilaterally decide that a web standard of a certain type will be created. > But I also believe W3C would be more than happy to entertain any > proposal that would be technically superior to the EME specification. Such a proposal would still have all the negative side effects that are essentially unavoidable in any DRM system that is designed for making circumvention as difficult as possible. In my opinion, at the very least it should be strongly insisted, within W3C processes, that the decrypted content must be returned to the browser (as opposed to the CDM accessing low-level operating system facilities directly). This would make the proposal much better (in the sense of significantly less objectionable) from the social perspective -- not only in regard to assistive technologies, but it would also significantly reduce the resulting risks for FOSS. But this change would make the EME spec technically inferior from the perspective of DRM proponents. It would be much better still to completely get rid of the CDM and provide "simple clear key decryption" only. Technically that is relatively easily breakable of course, but it is enough of a "technical protection measure" to have some legal protection in many jurisdictions. I'm rather pessimistic though in regard to the chance of convincing W3C to get rid of the CDM. > So basically, the best way to defeat this spec is to propose > something better that will rally a majority of working group members. > I do not believe it is possible to evacuate DRM support from HTML5 > (and yes, regardless of what the spec says in intro, it *will* > facilitate DRM, not to mention make it part of the core language of > the Web, and unfortunately, in a rather inelegant and inefficient > way) but it may be possible to propose something that will not lock > out open source or assistive technologies. Do you have any concrete ideas towards that? (There are reasons why the proponents of DRM have not yet managed to solve this problem. It is a hard problem, and in fact I'll be very surprised if it isn't truly impossible.) McTim wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > - the actual draft specification > > http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ > > The draft is all you need. For all those who have been griping about > the DRM aspects of it, they should probably read it first: > > "This specification does not define a content protection or Digital > Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be > used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as > with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital > Rights Management is not required for compliance with this > specification: only the simple clear key system is required to be > implemented as a common baseline." > > > - criticism from those who oppose DRM as a matter of principle: > > https://www.defectivebydesign.org/sign-on-against-drm-in-html > > but this is not DRM. Different people use the term "DRM system" with different degrees of broadness. (This is not unlike how the term "Internet governance" is also used with different broadness by different people.) DRM critics typically use the term in a broader sense than the authors of this draft. In that broader sense, typical uses of the "simple clear key system" are also a case of DRM. In particular, the "simple clear key system" is designed to fall under the legal category of "technical protection measures" which exists in various jurisdictions. Independently of that, the main objective of the draft spec is to enable DRM in the narrower sense in which the authors of the draft use the term. So the discourse on whether or not there should be a W3C spec that intends to enable DRM (in the way that that is intended by this spec) needs to focus on this spec. (What else should the discourse focus on?) Greetings, Norbert ** acronyms EME=Encrypted Media Extensions CDM=Content Decryption Module DRM=Digital Rights Management / Digital Restrictions Management FOSS=Free and Open Source Software W3C=World Wide Web Consortium -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 15 09:20:16 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:20:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130515145238.318848aa@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> <20130515145238.318848aa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <52742902-473D-413A-971D-A7CE2F589DB6@ciroap.org> On 15/05/2013, at 2:52 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I agree with your assessment of W3C; however I also see this as > something that needs to be challenged. It is fundamentally > anti-democratic when a key Internet governance institution is > organized as a consortium so that a small number of industry members > can --in total disregard of negative social consequences for > the rest of the world-- essentially unilaterally decide that a web > standard of a certain type will be created. This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, which makes it immune from political criticism. The W3C should stick to its knitting and raise policy questions in a different forum that is more accessible to non-technical stakeholders, such as the IGF. I'm in a W3C community group that is supposedly an interface to the discussions on DNT, and it has been useless. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 15 09:41:56 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:41:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] [] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, That is a really good question. I think the MAG should review them and start working on them. Whether they constitute commands to the MAG or recommendation its possibly a sticking point. I think there should have been a consultation on the improvements and then there should have been implementation. As far as I know, since the CSTD WG was closed semi-multistakeholder group, there has never been a consultation on the 'improvements'. There should be a consultation. But also, the improvements should not be ignored. But it think the starting presumption should be that the recommendation will be accepted unless there is a really good practical/implementation reason for not doing so that passes a multistakeholder sniff test*. Adam Peake wrote: >Must the IGF adopt all the recommendations of the WG on IGF >Improvements? Not clear on their status. > >Has there been adequate (open, transparent, inclusive) discussion of >the WG's recommendations? > >Adam > > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed May 15 10:33:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:33:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Message-ID: On an interesting note, W3C was the only group to organize an Internet-related workshop at the World Social Forum in Tunisia (one in 962 workshops). I do not know about the contents of the discussion, but the simple fact they were there is already revealing of some interest beyond the cables-and-chips community. []s fraternos --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Jeremy Malcolm Data: 15/05/2013 10h20 (GMT-03:00) Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow Assunto: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards On 15/05/2013, at 2:52 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: I agree with your assessment of W3C; however I also see this as something that needs to be challenged. It is fundamentally anti-democratic when a key Internet governance institution is organized as a consortium so that a small number of industry members can --in total disregard of negative social consequences for the rest of the world-- essentially unilaterally decide that a web standard of a certain type will be created. This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, which makes it immune from political criticism.  The W3C should stick to its knitting and raise policy questions in a different forum that is more accessible to non-technical stakeholders, such as the IGF.  I'm in a W3C community group that is supposedly an interface to the discussions on DNT, and it has been useless. --  Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fbenamor at gmail.com Wed May 15 11:19:06 2013 From: fbenamor at gmail.com (Farid E. Ben Amor) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 08:19:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Russian reference to sheep eating men at WTPF Message-ID: For those that may have also been confused by the Russian delegation's reference to "sheep eating man" in his explanation of their contributions to Draft Opinions 5 and 6, it is apparently a line from Thomas More's Utopia: BUT yet this is not only the necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that, quoth the Cardinal? forsooth my lord (quoth I), your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I heard say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest, and therefore dearest wool, there noble men, and gentlemen, yea and certain Abbots, holy men no doubt, not contenting themselves with the yearly revenues and profits, that were wont to grow to their forefathers and predecessors of their lands, nor being content that they live in rest and pleasure nothing profiting, yea much noying 1 the weal public, leave no ground for tillage: they inclose all into pastures, they throw down houses, they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheephouse. A very interesting note on the enclosing of the commons, and relevant to other discussions on this list, though I don't know that separation and censorship of a national segment will prevent the sheeps' predation of man. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Wed May 15 12:17:16 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:17:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> On 15/05/2013, at 7:05 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the dynamic of that). Government participation in ICANN would be a lot more functional if they did not feel the need to limit it to within GAC processes. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed May 15 12:42:01 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 04:42:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> Agreed. Also, ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its meetings and its work. Cheers Keith On 16/05/2013 4:17 a.m., David Cake wrote: > > On 15/05/2013, at 7:05 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the dynamic of that). > > Government participation in ICANN would be a lot more functional if they did not feel the need to limit it to within GAC processes. > > Cheers > > David > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 15 12:43:17 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 18:43:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Dear David, On May 15, 2013 6:18 PM, "David Cake" wrote: > > > On 15/05/2013, at 7:05 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the dynamic of that). > > Government participation in ICANN would be a lot more functional if they did not feel the need to limit it to within GAC processes. Could you elaborate on this? (Perhaps starting from who is the "they") Thanks, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 15 12:55:21 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:55:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] more on MS-ism from Markus Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/multistakeholder-cooperation-reflections-emergence-new-phraseology-international -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 14:22:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:22:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> Message-ID: In message <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51 at difference.com.au>, at 13:17:16 on Wed, 15 May 2013, David Cake writes >> Of course, one way that governments can participate in ICANN, other >>than by sending people to the GAC, is by sending their technical >>people to some of the other silos. (They could send GAC-type people to >>other silos too, but it seems they can usually only justify the trip >>by having a whole silo of their own, and I fully understand the >>dynamic of that). >Government participation in ICANN would be a lot more functional if >they did not feel the need to limit it to within GAC processes. The GAC has made great strides in recent years - for example freeing up time for their members to dip into other silos for a day or two (one of the side effects being their meeting starting very early, even as early as the previous Thursday for the Beijing meeting). But because their members have legitimate interests in many silos, it's physically impossible for each government representative to get fully involved in them all - even if they skipped most of the GAC's internal sessions. And another way the GAC has improved recently is to start getting involved for the other 49 weeks of the year which aren't ICANN meetings. Even being 110% involved for three weeks won't compensate for the fact that the other silos are conducting business all year round. Unless the GAC can find a way to cope with (or catch up with) that, they risk being ever more isolated. The main symptom being the way that GAC advice is increasingly perceived as "too much, too late". I'd like to work out how to help the GAC with all of this, but despite my best efforts can't seem to get inside the tent. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 14:38:54 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:38:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0egUFJp+Y9kRFA4m@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <20130515083057.GA8918 at hserus.net>, at 01:30:57 on Wed, 15 May 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>While I was working with RIPE NCC, I always found it interesting that >>several technicians working in the deployment of their national >>academic networks would self-identify as "government" (rather than >>"ISP"), on the grounds that the network was owned by the government. > >Not particularly odd when you consider that the academic network personnel >would get their paychecks from the government, report to a ministry >bureaucrat, have government job titles and pay scales .. Which in Europe would be significantly less than doing the same job in the private sector. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 14:46:42 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:46:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: In message <5193BAD9.1010109 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 04:42:01 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Keith Davidson writes >ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based >approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its >meetings and its work. Perhaps an inevitable consequence of being "multi-stakeholder" and hence having meetings specifically for each stakeholder group. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed May 15 15:26:19 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:26:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> On 16/05/2013 6:46 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: > In message <5193BAD9.1010109 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 04:42:01 on Thu, 16 > May 2013, Keith Davidson writes >> ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based >> approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its >> meetings and its work. > > Perhaps an inevitable consequence of being "multi-stakeholder" and hence > having meetings specifically for each stakeholder group. ICANN was originally established on a constituency basis, the dNSO, GAC, At Large etc, and has persisted with this model. Now that ICANN has matured significantly (but potentially nothing more than an acne laden adolescent), the constituency model is really only of use in the methodology to select / recruit / appoint that constituency's representative(s) to the ICANN Board. So perhaps the idea of coming into an ICANN meeting for day 1 and leaving on day 5 from *your* constituency, you could spend days 2 - 4 in multistakeholder rooms discussing issues with all affected parties, rather than purely with your peers - this would help all participants appreciate the colour and depth of opinion on issues, and therefore lead to more inclusive, transparent and consensus based decisions? Cheers Keith -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed May 15 15:36:33 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:36:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: +1 There are a lot of differing viewpoints at an ICANN meeting. If you only stay in one constituency you may come away with a distorted perception of what the community thinks of an issue. Kerry Brown On 2013-05-15 12:26 PM, "Keith Davidson" wrote: >On 16/05/2013 6:46 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <5193BAD9.1010109 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 04:42:01 on Thu, 16 >> May 2013, Keith Davidson writes >>> ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based >>> approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its >>> meetings and its work. >> >> Perhaps an inevitable consequence of being "multi-stakeholder" and hence >> having meetings specifically for each stakeholder group. > >ICANN was originally established on a constituency basis, the dNSO, GAC, >At Large etc, and has persisted with this model. Now that ICANN has >matured significantly (but potentially nothing more than an acne laden >adolescent), the constituency model is really only of use in the >methodology to select / recruit / appoint that constituency's >representative(s) to the ICANN Board. > >So perhaps the idea of coming into an ICANN meeting for day 1 and >leaving on day 5 from *your* constituency, you could spend days 2 - 4 in >multistakeholder rooms discussing issues with all affected parties, >rather than purely with your peers - this would help all participants >appreciate the colour and depth of opinion on issues, and therefore lead >to more inclusive, transparent and consensus based decisions? > >Cheers > >Keith > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Wed May 15 15:43:54 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:43:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <3BE006C9-89E2-4CE5-86AE-1E6AD3CBF42B@difference.com.au> On 15/05/2013, at 4:26 PM, Keith Davidson wrote: > On 16/05/2013 6:46 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <5193BAD9.1010109 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 04:42:01 on Thu, 16 >> May 2013, Keith Davidson writes >>> ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based >>> approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its >>> meetings and its work. >> >> Perhaps an inevitable consequence of being "multi-stakeholder" and hence >> having meetings specifically for each stakeholder group. > > ICANN was originally established on a constituency basis, the dNSO, GAC, At Large etc, and has persisted with this model. Now that ICANN has matured significantly (but potentially nothing more than an acne laden adolescent), the constituency model is really only of use in the methodology to select / recruit / appoint that constituency's representative(s) to the ICANN Board. > > So perhaps the idea of coming into an ICANN meeting for day 1 and leaving on day 5 from *your* constituency, you could spend days 2 - 4 in multistakeholder rooms discussing issues with all affected parties, rather than purely with your peers - this would help all participants appreciate the colour and depth of opinion on issues, and therefore lead to more inclusive, transparent and consensus based decisions? My experience of ICANN is that I spend roughly 1 day of each meeting (Tuesday, 'constituency day') focussed on my constituency, and the rest of the time in more multistakeholder rooms. And that problems remain. The problem is not really about constituencies per se, or even constituencies in the ICANN specific use of term - but rather siloisation into separate processes. Several of the ICANN silos are multistakeholder, but still silos (I spend most of my time within the GNSO, which is certainly multi-stakeholder, but not all stakeholders, and not all issues) - and much of the problem in dealing with government is that government is largely corralled into its own separate silo that does limited direct interaction. When we talk about multi-stakeholder, we generally talk about the three major stakeholder groups being government, civil society, and business (with sometimes the 'technical community' as a fourth). When I'm at ICANN, I spend the bulk of my time in interaction between commercial and civil society interests, and there is plenty of interaction with more technical groups as well - but the government groups I interact with to a limited extent, and largely informally, and that is in large part because the GAC processes force that. This ostensibly MAG related thread seems to have got very ICANN specific fast. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 16:05:49 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:05:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: In message <5193E15B.7000003 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 07:26:19 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Keith Davidson writes >So perhaps the idea of coming into an ICANN meeting for day 1 and >leaving on day 5 from *your* constituency, you could spend days 2 - 4 >in multistakeholder rooms discussing issues with all affected parties, >rather than purely with your peers - this would help all participants >appreciate the colour and depth of opinion on issues, and therefore >lead to more inclusive, transparent and consensus based decisions? I've always been in favour of spending the whole week ("helicopter lobbying" isn't my scene), although the start has been suffering from significant creep in recent years. Once upon a time you might get away with arriving on Saturday, for participating Sunday, but now it's been pushed back from even that (in Beijing four tracks on Saturday, and others even earlier). The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 15 16:13:18 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:13:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: In message , at 19:36:33 on Wed, 15 May 2013, Kerry Brown writes >There are a lot of differing viewpoints at an ICANN meeting. If you >only stay in one constituency you may come away with a distorted >perception of what the community thinks of an issue. One strategy is to follow the board around, during their tour of various silos/constituencies. But that suffers from the problem that what you hear is severely sanitised, rather than the "raw input" you'll get when the Board isn't in the room. Of course, if you have several weeks to dedicate to the task you can catch up with almost everything via the archived webcasts. I'm not sure how many people do that though, because they have other things to do, meetings to attend. It's almost as if each silo needs a full time policy research secretariat to keep it up to date with what's happening elsewhere in ICANN. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed May 15 16:24:04 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:24:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? Just don't know, that is why I am asking. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed May 15 16:37:36 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:37:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards Message-ID: Hi Avri, Your question is pertinent, but the text below you are commenting is not mine. I think it is Jeremy's ? frt rgds --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Mensagem original -------- De : Avri Doria Data: 15/05/2013 17h24 (GMT-03:00) Para: IGC Assunto: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization.  If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? Just don't know, that is why I am asking. 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 Wed May 15 18:01:26 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:01:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: apologies On 15 May 2013, at 22:37, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Your question is pertinent, but the text below you are commenting is not mine. I think it is Jeremy's ? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Mensagem original -------- > De : Avri Doria > Data: 15/05/2013 17h24 (GMT-03:00) > Para: IGC > Assunto: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards > > > On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, > > > i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. > If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? > > Just don't know, that is why I am asking. > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 15 21:44:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:14:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <0egUFJp+Y9kRFA4m@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <0egUFJp+Y9kRFA4m@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <13eab025efd.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> That would be the case in most parts of the world, or maybe even substantially smaller salaries, which is partly the cause for widespread corruption in countries that pay far too less, but I digress.. --srs (htc one x) On 16 May 2013 12:08:54 AM Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20130515083057.GA8918 at hserus.net>, at 01:30:57 on Wed, 15 May > 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes > >>While I was working with RIPE NCC, I always found it interesting that > several technicians working in the deployment of their national academic > networks would self-identify as "government" (rather than "ISP"), on the > grounds that the network was owned by the government. > > > >Not particularly odd when you consider that the academic network personnel > >would get their paychecks from the government, report to a ministry > >bureaucrat, have government job titles and pay scales .. > > Which in Europe would be significantly less than doing the same job in the > private sector. > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu May 16 00:18:04 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 06:18:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Avri, On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, > > > i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. > If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? Ciao, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 16 00:30:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:00:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A membership organization with open membership criteria and equal participation rights is definitely multistakeholder. --srs (iPad) On 16-May-2013, at 9:48, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Avri, > > On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > > > > On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, > > > > > > i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. > > If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? > > Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? > > Ciao, > > Andrea > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu May 16 01:15:52 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 01:15:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51946B88.2010000@communisphere.com> It seems to me that membership fees matter. As does the ability to fully participate, e.g., pay for the hotels and air fare to attend meetings. Also important is the ability to speak the language of the Net. Tom Lowenhaupt On 5/16/2013 12:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A membership organization with open membership criteria and equal > participation rights is definitely multistakeholder. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 16-May-2013, at 9:48, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > >> Dear Avri, >> >> On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" > > wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > >> > > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of >> the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community >> organisations, >> > >> > >> > i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, >> but isn't W3C a membership organization. >> > If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? >> >> Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership >> organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a >> multi-stakeholder organisation? >> >> Ciao, >> >> Andrea >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 16 01:27:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:57:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <51946B88.2010000@communisphere.com> References: <51946B88.2010000@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <7668CA60-289E-4BA1-8484-C43C3C239940@hserus.net> W3C tends to meet at far less exotic locations than the IGF does, come to think of it. And travel is a far larger chunk of any such budget compared to membership fees. --srs (iPad) On 16-May-2013, at 10:45, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > It seems to me that membership fees matter. As does the ability to fully participate, e.g., pay for the hotels and air fare to attend meetings. Also important is the ability to speak the language of the Net. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 02:40:01 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 09:40:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51947F41.10506@gmail.com> This is a caricature of the post, if addressed to my email. The 'Peculiar Internationalism' presented by McT and Mueller invite this kind of analysis as to the general and particular state of law and practice in the US. ON THE LOGIC used to derive this critique, I can only wonder what the dialectic would be for critiques of the poor Third World countries? I cannot go into this without going to motive, and so will avoid that. What I can say is that if asserting Peculiar Internationalism is ok, then so is interrogating the context in which it operates. If the response is, this is US bashing, then this is emotive and not reason. All I can say, like the Wikileaks discussion (or to a lesser extent Shwartz), there is a deep values divergence in practice if the US, Wikileaks War Crime Exposure, Schwartz's Leviathan monster, and regulatory capture. These are matters imminently within the scope of critique of Peculiar Internationalism. This even with my Peculiar Single Rooter position (not to be confused in ANY way with McTim's - not ad hominem, just precise). What concerns me about the post is the need for defensiveness on this issue, and what this implies about the Worldview that informs it and its relation to the Third World. This kind of characterisation of critique simply cannot be reasoned with. Nor is the post tangential to what happens as it informs Freedom of Speech (media rights) in the US, which is the law under which ICANN and the likes operate. I mention this to be absolutely clear about how relevance here is understood. So in THIS specific context, if this is USA bashing then I am a basher, along with many other Americans, including the AP affected by this seizure. And no complaints should flow when the Third World basher name calling is brought out... As you can see, there is not much room for discussion in this vein (except scoring political points)... Riaz On 2013/05/15 07:10 AM, McTim wrote: > This isn't the venue for standing against that sort of thing...this is > the CSIGC, not the Down With The USA Caucus! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > wrote: > > Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that > has great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited > as the cause of every major riot, civil war, external military > campaign - "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of > Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my > sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) > -C > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob > > wrote: > > How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of > Rights seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers > who have attorney client privilege violated by being bugged > through to the Leviathan monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may > he and his family know peace), the priorities even of some > Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... > > 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT > > > Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure > > Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated > Press in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013) The government > would not say why it sought the Associated Press telephone > records > Continue reading the main story > > > The Associated Press has described the US government's secret > seizure of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive > and unprecedented intrusion". > > Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the > justice department had gathered records of outgoing calls from > more than 20 phone lines > . > > Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for > such an overbroad collection". > > The justice department has provided no explanation for the > seizure. > > However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's > Office in the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal > investigation into information contained in an AP story last year. > > Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation > in Yemen that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound > airplane. > > Confidential sources > > The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly > after it had informed the public that there was nothing to > suggest any such attack had been planned, says the BBC's David > Willis in Washington. > > Continue reading the main story > > > > > “Start Quote > > I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear > the government's explanation” > > Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman > > Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor > who were involved in the AP story were among those obtained in > April and May 2012. > > AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers > and a fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in > Connecticut, Washington DC and the House of Representatives > was unusual and largely unprecedented. > > "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad > collection of the telephone communications of the Associated > Press and its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US > Attorney General Eric Holder > . > > "These records potentially reveal communications with > confidential sources across all of the newsgathering > activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, > provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and > disclose information about AP's activities and operations that > the government has no conceivable right to know." > > It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls > or the duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge > or grand jury approved the subpoenas. > > News organisations are normally notified in advance if the > government is seeking such information and are given time to > negotiate. > > The Obama administration has aggressively investigated > disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing > more cases against people suspected of leaking such material > than any previous administration, our correspondent adds. > > 'Press intimidation' > > Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative > House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform > Committee, criticised the seizure of records. > > "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it > before they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. > > Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate > Judiciary Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am > very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the > government's explanation." > > The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama > administration of "press intimidation". > > In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of > Columbia insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow > all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of > Justice policies". > > "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort > to obtain information through alternative means before even > considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of > the media," it said. > > "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always > careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right > balance between the public interest in the free flow of > information and the public interest in the fair and effective > administration of our criminal laws," it added. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu May 16 02:47:42 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:47:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 06:18:04 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes > isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to >become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? As a piece of Internet Governance jargon, multi-stakeholder has come to mean every-stakeholder. We would need a new name for several-stakeholder (or even many-stakeholder) organisations. For example, if Governments ceased attending ICANN meetings, I think it would no longer be truly "multi"-stakeholder (despite the large number of remaining stakeholders). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 16 02:54:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:54:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, > at 06:18:04 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso > writes > > > isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to >> become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? >> > > As a piece of Internet Governance jargon, multi-stakeholder has come to > mean every-stakeholder. We would need a new name for several-stakeholder > (or even many-stakeholder) organisations. > > For example, if Governments ceased attending ICANN meetings, I think it > would no longer be truly "multi"-stakeholder (despite the large number of > remaining stakeholders). [ST: That's an excellent point Roland. Multistakeholder has been perceived to have at least three core components, namely civil society, private sector and the public sector] > > > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu May 16 03:18:55 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 09:18:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can you define "open membership criteria" and refine the notion of "equal participation rights", i.e. everyone has the same speaking rights? Everyone has the same decision-making rights? On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A membership organization with open membership criteria and equal participation rights is definitely multistakeholder. > --srs (iPad) > On 16-May-2013, at 9:48, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > Dear Avri, > > On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >> >> On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, >> >> >> i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. >> If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? > > Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 16 03:39:25 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:39:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: Noting that Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman is quoted in the article to asking for a Government explanation over an alleged secret seizure of journalists telephone records. There are several key issues that emerge and these include: - media freedom and rights of journalists - privacy rights - whether warrants and subpoenas allowed the siezure and whether these were "inter parte" or "ex parte" applications If pulling records are conducted with the intention of tracking "whistleblowers" or putting journalists under surveillance there are serious encroachments on "The Fourth Estate" and the media as a watchdog. The alleged incident that has been reported is not unique to the US if it is happening and am sure it is happening in other parts of the world. The media no doubt is a force to be reckoned with as it holds massive clout in being able to shape public perception. Frankly, I would be interested in the Inquiry and Investigation if there is one. If for some reason the allegation is true, it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I would also submit that the issue is not against the country but more of a process related issue which concerns civil liberties and as civil society, we ought to be concerned. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights > seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney > client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster > that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities > even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... > > 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT > > Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure > [image: Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated Press > in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)] The government would not say why it > sought the Associated Press telephone records > Continue reading the main story > > The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of > its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented > intrusion". > > Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice > department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone > lines > . > > Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an > overbroad collection". > > The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. > > However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the > District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into > information contained in an AP story last year. > > Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that > foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. > Confidential sources > > The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had > informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had > been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. > Continue reading the main story > “Start Quote > > I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's > explanation” > > Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman > > Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were > involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. > > AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax > line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC > and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. > > "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection > of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr > Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder > . > > "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources > across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a > two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and > disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the > government has no conceivable right to know." > > It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the > duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury > approved the subpoenas. > > News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is > seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. > > The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of > classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people > suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our > correspondent adds. > 'Press intimidation' > > Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of > Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the > seizure of records. > > "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they > intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. > > Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary > Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these > allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." > > The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of > "press intimidation". > > In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia > insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, > federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". > > "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain > information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena > for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. > > "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and > deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public > interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the > fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _67586307_67586302.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 16 04:16:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:46:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Open membership criteria = stakeholders from any sector - government, industry, civil society, academia are able to gain membership .. possibly subject to criteria such as accepting a code of conduct and/or possible vetting to ensure that their previous track record does match the code of conduct (which would generally be best practice). Equal participation - everybody has speaking and, where relevant, voting rights. There are of course committee / working group chairs possible even in such a setup, and voting may be based on rough consensus, but chairs would necessarily have some additional rights [but that is an elected post so ..] These are simplistic and I am sure some nuances can be found to tilt such organizations either way, from open all the way to rigidly closed. --srs (iPad) On 16-May-2013, at 12:48, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Can you define "open membership criteria" and refine the notion of "equal participation rights", i.e. everyone has the same speaking rights? Everyone has the same decision-making rights? > > On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A membership organization with open membership criteria and equal participation rights is definitely multistakeholder. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 16-May-2013, at 9:48, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > > Dear Avri, > > > > On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> > >> > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations, > >> > >> > >> i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization. > >> If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder? > > > > Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? > > > > Ciao, > > > > Andrea > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 16 04:27:28 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:27:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update: NomCom for Appeals Team renewal Message-ID: > > > Dear All, We are grateful to all the volunteers who sent their names and we can confirm that we have more than 25 names to initiate the process as per the rules. Trust that you are all in excellent spirits and good health. This is the updated list of all those that volunteered and will close the call for volunteers through this email. * 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar 2) Jeremy Malcolm 3) José Félix Arias Ynche 4) Kerry Brown 5) Avri Doria 6) Sarah Kiden 7) Shaila Mistry 8) Deirdre Williams 9) José Francisco Callo Romero 10) Carlos Vera Quintana 11) Izumi AIZU 12) Adam Peake 13) Angela Daly 14) Mwendwa Kivuva 15) Keith Davidson 16) Carlos Watson 17) Rudi Vansnick 18) Vincent Solomon 19) Michael Gurstein 20) Parminder Jeet Singh 21) Wilson Abigaba 22) Thomas Lowenhaupt 23) Asif Kabani 24) Ginger Paque 25) Marilia Maciel 26) Julian Casasbuenas G.* * * Thank you once again. Kind Regards, Sala > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu May 16 05:46:09 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 21:46:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> On 16/05/2013 8:05 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: > I've always been in favour of spending the whole week ("helicopter > lobbying" isn't my scene), although the start has been suffering from > significant creep in recent years. Once upon a time you might get away > with arriving on Saturday, for participating Sunday, but now it's been > pushed back from even that (in Beijing four tracks on Saturday, and > others even earlier). > > The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has > become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to > attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend > others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously. Exactly my point. At a personal level - I spend most of my time in the ccNSO silo, and have a good understanding of the ccTLD communities views on all sorts of issues, take for example, WHOIS. I have some idea of the GAC's view, and no idea of any other constituency views on this topic. It would make more sense to have the multistakeholder dialogue on this topic so I could appreciate the range of opinion. At an operational level - the WHOIS review team came to an ICANN meeting and had to do 11 separate presentations to work through all constituencies - surely this is a waste of everyones time, most especially the review teams, and surely it is symptomatic of being non-multistakeholder in nature as it is a series of silo'ised discussions. Cheers Keith -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu May 16 06:59:00 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:59:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Russian reference to sheep eating men at WTPF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C1F39F2-17C3-4246-9040-ACDB73170A54@uzh.ch> Hi On May 15, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Farid E. Ben Amor wrote: > For those that may have also been confused by the Russian delegation's reference to "sheep eating man" in his explanation of their contributions to Draft Opinions 5 and 6, it is apparently a line from Thomas More's Utopia: > > BUT yet this is not only the necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that, quoth the Cardinal? forsooth my lord (quoth I), your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I heard say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest, and therefore dearest wool, there noble men, and gentlemen, yea and certain Abbots, holy men no doubt, not contenting themselves with the yearly revenues and profits, that were wont to grow to their forefathers and predecessors of their lands, nor being content that they live in rest and pleasure nothing profiting, yea much noying 1 the weal public, leave no ground for tillage: they inclose all into pastures, they throw down houses, they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheephouse. > > A very interesting note on the enclosing of the commons, and relevant to other discussions on this list, though I don't know that separation and censorship of a national segment will prevent the sheeps' predation of man. Thanks for this helpful clarification. Now if only the rest of the explanations hadn't been so mysterious…:-) Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 16 07:28:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:28:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Whatever do you mean? Perhaps this is a good time to make public "McTim's Law" (which I formulated after meeting Mike Godwin a few months ago). It states: ""As an IGC discussion grows longer, the probability of America bashing approaches 1". BTW, this thread is completely OT, not even Tangential to our mission. There are many other fora to discuss violations of law/Constitutional protection. Please take this elsewhere, it's nothing to do with the internet. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu May 16 10:19:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:19:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2404660@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> [Milton L Mueller] The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic. He is correct. [parminder] Pl see my email. I said, either IO is wrong (he applied creteria inappropriately) or ICANN is wrong to have laid inappropriate and insufficient creteria...... [Milton L Mueller] No, _you_ are wrong. He applied the criteria correctly, and ICANN is correct to have established narrow criteria. [Milton L Mueller] What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest" [parminder] I can easily relieve you of this particular disturbance.... I am no great believer in 'experts' deciding such major things . Such so called 'independent' objectors or arbitrators have a very limited role, if any, in my democratic scheme of things..... [Milton L Mueller] But you just said, above, that you wanted them to lay down criteria that allowed the IO to strike down TLD applications on “public interest” grounds, when public interest is an undefined term – a criteria that basically begs the question, because all policy debates are fundamentally about what is in the public interest, and many of us differ on that. But maybe, the community criterion could have been applied..... This shows that you don’t really know what is going on here. There is a community objection process that is separate from the IO rules. Perhaps if you became actually involved in ICANN you would learn such things. English speaking people constitute a community whose collective rights are compromised by allowing, [Milton L Mueller] Of course, there is no such things as a collective right of English speaking people. The ability of people to make up nonsense “rights” never ceases to amaze me. for instance. the products of Amazon such close exclusive association with the word 'book' which is so widely used in a different meaning by this community..... [Milton L Mueller] And none of those uses would be precluded by the registration of a .book TLD, any more than registration of book.com or book.whatever precluded us from discussing books, the word book, etc., etc. Really, your argumentation here is so weak I guess you must rely on repetition and hope that no one notices. But the IO chose not to apply the criterion...... [Milton L Mueller] one more time, there WAS NO criterion that would have allowed an IO objection to those words, so that is why he didn’t apply it. [parminder] A polity's essential job is to define and determine "public interest" in a given context...... [Milton L Mueller] exactly. So appealing to the public interest, without further elaboration of rules, criteria, precedents, etc., is quite meaningless. Or, worse than meaningless, it is a blank check to whoever happens to be in a position to power to apply and enforce their own prejudices. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 16 10:23:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:23:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2404660@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2404660@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130516142306.GA23551@hserus.net> You know, it would be interesting to see Parminder actually attend a few ICANN meetings and give the attendees the benefits of his wide experience and clearly individual thoughts. Milton L Mueller [16/05/13 14:19 +0000]: > > > >[Milton L Mueller] The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic. > >He is correct. > >[parminder] Pl see my email. I said, either IO is wrong (he applied creteria inappropriately) or ICANN is wrong to have laid inappropriate and insufficient creteria...... > >[Milton L Mueller] No, _you_ are wrong. He applied the criteria correctly, and ICANN is correct to have established narrow criteria. > > > >[Milton L Mueller] What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest" >[parminder] I can easily relieve you of this particular disturbance.... I am no great believer in 'experts' deciding such major things . Such so called 'independent' objectors or arbitrators have a very limited role, if any, in my democratic scheme of things..... > >[Milton L Mueller] But you just said, above, that you wanted them to lay down criteria that allowed the IO to strike down TLD applications on “public interest” grounds, when public interest is an undefined term – a criteria that basically begs the question, because all policy debates are fundamentally about what is in the public interest, and many of us differ on that. > >But maybe, the community criterion could have been applied..... > >This shows that you don’t really know what is going on here. There is a community objection process that is separate from the IO rules. Perhaps if you became actually involved in ICANN you would learn such things. > >English speaking people constitute a community whose collective rights are compromised by allowing, >[Milton L Mueller] Of course, there is no such things as a collective right of English speaking people. The ability of people to make up nonsense “rights” never ceases to amaze me. > >for instance. the products of Amazon such close exclusive association with the word 'book' which is so widely used in a different meaning by this community..... > >[Milton L Mueller] And none of those uses would be precluded by the registration of a .book TLD, any more than registration of book.com or book.whatever precluded us from discussing books, the word book, etc., etc. Really, your argumentation here is so weak I guess you must rely on repetition and hope that no one notices. > >But the IO chose not to apply the criterion...... > >[Milton L Mueller] one more time, there WAS NO criterion that would have allowed an IO objection to those words, so that is why he didn’t apply it. > >[parminder] A polity's essential job is to define and determine "public interest" in a given context...... > >[Milton L Mueller] exactly. So appealing to the public interest, without further elaboration of rules, criteria, precedents, etc., is quite meaningless. Or, worse than meaningless, it is a blank check to whoever happens to be in a position to power to apply and enforce their own prejudices. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Thu May 16 10:23:25 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:23:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> For those paying attention, the US public interest organizations and civil libertarians are in a complete uproar about all these cases, especially the AP case. Atty General Holder is under fire. But Riaz and others seem to miss the point. The point is not that the US state is flawless and holy, and therefore Riaz can gloat when it does bad things. To civil libertarians, ALL states are capable of such things, at ALL times, and therefore one needs institutionalized rights such as the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights in order to keep them in check. We are certainly better off that those rights are enshrined in the constitution than if they were not. Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the cause of every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my sister (she's in the US) about this very point :) -C On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), the priorities even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) are misaligned... 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure [Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated Press in Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)]The government would not say why it sought the Associated Press telephone records Continue reading the main story The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion". Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 phone lines. Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an overbroad collection". The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into information contained in an AP story last year. Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. Confidential sources The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such attack had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. Continue reading the main story "Start Quote I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation" Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, Washington DC and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely unprecedented. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury approved the subpoenas. News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government is seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, our correspondent adds. 'Press intimidation' Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised the seizure of records. "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of "press intimidation". In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu May 16 10:24:44 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <8F63E41B-7CDB-4A81-ACA7-32BAA94CF52C@ciroap.org> <3AE19CAA-CEFD-47A2-BC88-976891B2CA51@gmail.com> <014501ce50b5$8412cb90$8c3862b0$@gmail.com> <51927166.3070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2405691@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> We are in violent agreement here! The required transparency and documentation condition have not been fulfilled till now.... IGC must urgently write to UNDESA and IGF secretariat to do the needful, at the earliest. If CS isnt the one demanding fulfilment of transparency requirements I dont know who will... 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 16 10:41:16 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:41:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> How do I respond without being offensive? This is extremely provocative. On 2013/05/16 02:28 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Whatever do you mean? > > Perhaps this is a good time to make public "McTim's Law" (which I formulated > after meeting Mike Godwin a few months ago). It states: ""As an IGC > discussion grows longer, the probability of America bashing approaches > 1". > > BTW, this thread is completely OT, not even Tangential to our mission. > There are many other fora to discuss violations of law/Constitutional > protection. Please take this elsewhere, it's nothing to do with the > internet. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 16 11:07:38 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:07:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5194F63A.8030600@gmail.com> Responses below. On 2013/05/16 05:23 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > For those paying attention, the US public interest organizations and > civil libertarians are in a complete uproar about all these cases, > especially the AP case. Atty General Holder is under fire. > Of course they are. But on this list nary a word about it. In point of fact it is irrelevant according to McT. > > But Riaz and others seem to miss the point. > No I don't. It was a performative call to others on this list to provide their views. Its news everywhere, but irrelevant for this list. Funny, no? ... actually not. > The point is not that the US state is flawless and holy, > Except that the context in which these and related arguments are made is that we can safely leave CIR under exclusive US jurisdiction - California in particular I recall. Any questioning of this is lambasted, ridiculed or sought to be silenced. These issues are corollaries. If you can assert yours, 1) I can assert mine on my own terms, 2) interrogate yours. If you know your pants are going to be pulled down while on the public stage, wear underwear. I mean what can I say here to help you? > and therefore Riaz can gloat when it does bad things. > This goes to motive. Unfair. I point out the shortcomings in the adequacy of Peculiar Internationalism on a reasoned basis, albeit provocatively. > To civil libertarians, ALL states are capable of such things, at ALL > times, and therefore one needs institutionalized rights such as the > U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights in order to keep them in check. > Very true. But law is not only known by its positive norms, but also by its exceptions. You cannot assert the one without the other. And then I am instructed on what to say on this list. Or that I am gloating. Can you not see it as provocative so as to engage with the legal ecology of CIR under exclusive US jurisdiction? Is it not possible that third world countries will import bad legislation from the US and stifle our own laws (as is happening with security and terrorism after the PATRIOT Act, or that drafted by ALEC which asserts no access to information laws apply to it)? Too much is presumed, albeit I am trying to be provocative. > We are certainly better off that those rights are enshrined in the > constitution than if they were not. > We agree. It failed Schwartz, like Japanese Americans before, precisely when he needed protection from the Leviathan the most. You can't seriously be telling me that the roof does not leak while it is not raining? Problem is, I am afraid that you are. > Anyone standing yet? I assumed the US of A to be a country that has > great respect for the Bill of Rights - afterall it's oft cited as the > cause of every major riot, civil war, external military campaign - > "need to enforce Human Rights as per the Bill of Rights" - > coincidentally 22 hours ago I was just arguing with my sister (she's > in the US) about this very point :) > > -C > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > How very droll... will the American's that take their Bill of Rights > seriously please stand up... from Guantanamo lawyers who have attorney > client privilege violated by being bugged through to the Leviathan > monster that ate Aaron Schwartz (may he and his family know peace), > the priorities even of some Libertarians (as I see from the outside) > are misaligned... > > 14 May 2013 Last updated at 01:29 GMT > > > Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure > > Man looks at his phone outside the offices of the Associated Press in > Manhattan, New York (13 May 2013)The government would not say why it > sought the Associated Press telephone records > > Continue reading the main story > > > The Associated Press has described the US government's secret seizure > of its journalists' telephone records as a "massive and unprecedented > intrusion". > > Chief executive Gary Pruitt said AP was told on Friday the justice > department had gathered records of outgoing calls from more than 20 > phone lines > . > > Mr Pruitt said there could be "no possible justification for such an > overbroad collection". > > The justice department has provided no explanation for the seizure. > > However, officials have previously said the US Attorney's Office in > the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into > information contained in an AP story last year. > > Published in May 2012, the article was about a CIA operation in Yemen > that foiled an al-Qaeda plot to blow up a US-bound airplane. > > Confidential sources > > The story was embarrassing to the government, coming shortly after it > had informed the public that there was nothing to suggest any such > attack had been planned, says the BBC's David Willis in Washington. > > Continue reading the main story > > > > "Start Quote > > I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the > government's explanation" > > Senator Patrick Leahy Judiciary Committee chairman > > Records for the phone numbers of five reporters and an editor who were > involved in the AP story were among those obtained in April and May 2012. > > AP said the seizure of records for general switchboard numbers and a > fax line at its offices in New York, Hartford, in Connecticut, > Washington DC and the House of Representatives was unusual and largely > unprecedented. > > "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad > collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and > its reporters," Mr Pruitt wrote in a letter to US Attorney General > Eric Holder > . > > "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential > sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the > AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering > operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and > operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." > > It is not clear if the records seized included incoming calls or the > duration of the calls. Nor is it clear whether a judge or grand jury > approved the subpoenas. > > News organisations are normally notified in advance if the government > is seeking such information and are given time to negotiate. > > The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of > classified information to the media, bringing more cases against > people suspected of leaking such material than any previous > administration, our correspondent adds. > > 'Press intimidation' > > Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the investigative House of > Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticised > the seizure of records. > > "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before > they intruded on the freedom of the press," he told CNN. > > Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary > Committee, said in a statement emailed to AP: "I am very troubled by > these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation." > > The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Obama administration of > "press intimidation". > > In a statement, the US Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia > insisted it took seriously its obligations to "follow all applicable > laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies". > > "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to > obtain information through alternative means before even considering a > subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media," it said. > > "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and > deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public > interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in > the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," it added. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14610 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 11:30:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:30:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <082201ce524a$5fb30b70$1f192250$@gmail.com> As seems to be apparent in all aspects having to do with MS stuff there are a number of significant ambiguities in what you (and others) have written on this Sala. Does "muliti-stakeholder" mean multiple stakeholder groups or multiple stakeholders irrespective of groupings i.e. many stakeholders Following this does "stakeholder" refer to an individual element with a "stake"/interest, or a grouping which presumably has a stake/interest in common among its members viz. is Google for example, a single "stakeholder" or is it a component of the "private sector" stakeholder grouping or is it both and if so what kind of a MS process would be the result. And then how do we define "stake" (interest?) (and thus the holder of such a "stake"/interest i.e. a "stakeholder") and is this definition something done by the individual, by the grouping, by an external party. Is there a gradation of "stakes" i.e. do some have more of a "stake" than others and if so what are the implications of this--from a for example, weight of participation perspective--should the participation of those with more "stake" be given more weight in multi-stakeholder processes (and so on. If the answer is no, then what procedure is in place to ensure that those with "legitimate" stakes are equally able to pursue those stakes whatever their base of resources to support their interventions. Can the stakeholder be incorrect in their delineation of their "stake" i.e. can a 3rd party say to a stakeholder (or to a stakeholder group q.v.) -- you cannot participate because you are not a "legitimate" stakeholder in this particular decision process. If this is possible who determines the process of this assessment, if it is not possible then how would it be possible to, for example exclude trolls, brigands, those using false information to pursue ulterior (illegal?) ends, (and as I alluded to in my blogpost.answering these (and the myriad of other) issues is not purely academic since it would appear that extremely weighty issues and decisions are being mooted for realization through MS processes. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:54 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:18:04 on Thu, 16 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation? As a piece of Internet Governance jargon, multi-stakeholder has come to mean every-stakeholder. We would need a new name for several-stakeholder (or even many-stakeholder) organisations. For example, if Governments ceased attending ICANN meetings, I think it would no longer be truly "multi"-stakeholder (despite the large number of remaining stakeholders). [ST: That's an excellent point Roland. Multistakeholder has been perceived to have at least three core components, namely civil society, private sector and the public sector] -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 16 13:02:12 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:02:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > How do I respond without being offensive? hopefully without top posting. You could analyse all the threads on the IGC list and go through them one by one to count the number of them that did vs did not end up somehow bashing the USA. I suspect the "did" far outnumber the "did nots"...and there is still time for the "did nots" to turn > > This is extremely provocative. It was meant to be an honest observation, not provocation. Is provocation a Bad Thing? You yourself replied to MM just now and admittede] (2x) that you were being intentionally provocative. In any case, it's still OT. Our Charter says:: "Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include  Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives" -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu May 16 13:04:28 2013 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:04:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The point is not that the US state is flawless and holy, [...] To civil > libertarians, ALL states are capable of such things, at ALL times, and > therefore one needs institutionalized rights such as the U.S. Constitution > and its Bill of Rights in order to keep them in check. We are certainly > better off that those rights are enshrined in the constitution than if they > were not. > > At bottom is a list of dozens of recognized CONSTITUTIONAL rights or powers that are NOT expressly mentioned in the Constitution, but have nevertheless been held to be constitutionally protected rights or powers. I share this quickly cobbled together list mainly because of Milton's over broad statement that because liberty is always at risk everywhere, that we "therefore" are better off with rights "enshrined in the Constitution than if they were not." This is not necessarily so because once they are "enshrined" people seem to think that this enshrining defines the limits of our rights to the areas enshrined. Even the Constitution itself in the 9th and 10th amendments expressly reserves other rights to the People and/or the states. Even a quick read of the constitution of the former Soviet Union will show that it purported to protect and recognize and "enshrine" even more rights than the US Constitution. At the end of the day, without what is often called "the spirit of liberty" there is no document or law or constitution that will protect everybody's liberty in a meaningful way, and on a long-term basis. *The relevance of my list below to Internet Governance is to point to the ambiguity of potential treaty language regarding the Internet, and the problem that people will likely treat the treaty language as fully limiting the scope of rights*. (There are issues no matter whether rights are enshrined or not, however, and enshrinement is not without its benefits). It is closer to the truth to say rights that don't harm others are plenary, and it is the burden of those who wish to burden or prohibit those rights in any circumstances to justify themselves, rather than the burden of people to prove the right. But, the foregoing "truth" is true (or apparent) o*nly to those who believe in this vision of liberty*. There are many others who, as a matter of practice, do not so believe, and they would put the burden on proving a right to something even where it does not infringe on anybody else's rights. In the final analysis, if you read the list below of things or rights not recognized by the US Constitution, and also realize that virtually all of those below are in fact dealt with on a constitutional basis in some way by Supreme Courts over the centuries, it leads to the realization that it is the METHOD OF INTERPRETATION of the Constitution and whether or not this is done in what I've called "the spirit of liberty" that is really most important in terms of actual results. This is where the real battles go on, usually in subtext but oftentimes openly. *RIGHTS OR POWERS specifically NOT expressly Mentioned in US Constitution but nevertheless recognized in significant degree as Constitutional rights by Supreme Courts.* (i.e. "enshrinement" is not the only route to real rights) 1. The right to marry, 2. right to travel (considered “virtually unconditional” and constitutionally guaranteed even though it was expressly in the Articles of Confederation and omitted from the Constitution), 3. right to move to different state, 4. right to emigrate, 5. right to fair trial, 6. right to jury of one’s peers, 7. right against revocation of citizenship, 8. right to judicial review, 9. right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, 10. right to have children, 11. right to wear clothing of one’s choice, 12. right to start a business, 13. right to choice of schooling for children, and 14. the right to vote (and many others not mentioned here). 15. right to communicate via the Internet 16. right to use birth control, 17. right to form unions, or have consumer rights, 18. gay rights or disability rights, 19. right to have sexual relations with anyone (whether married to them or not), 20. right of self-defense, 21. right to personal hairstyle, 22. right to conscientiously object to violent military service, 23. reproductive choice rights, 24. rights of the unborn, 25. right to be left alone, 26. rights to medical care, food, housing, and education, and 27. no right of revolt or revolution (like the Declaration of Independence asserted as inalienable right) no matter how bad things are. *Nothing authorizes, allows or addresses the following in the US Constitution, which nevertheless exist and are recognized as of constitutional import: * 1. No authorization for Air Force, 2. no congressional districts, 3. no electoral *College*, 4. no Executive orders, 5. no executive privilege, 6. no reference to God, legislative Chaplains, etc. (although "Lord" is mentioned once in text stating the year Constitution was signed), 7. no indication that impeachment equals possible removal from office, 8. no prohibition of taxation without representation, (and indeed Washington D.C. still suffers from this even though it is elsewhere recognized as a principle) 9. no specific number of Supreme Court justices, 10. no paper money authority (only coinage), 11. no authorization of political parties (and the Founders hated them and called them “factions”), 12. no primary elections, 13. no qualifications for federal judges at all, 14. no qualifications for federal legislative politicians other than age and residence, 15. no separation of church and state clause, 16. “separation of powers” not explicitly stated, 17. no “checks and balances” expressly mentioned, 18. no express power to regulate immigration (only “naturalization” of citizens). 19. no rights of peremptory military attack. 20. And many more which might be listed. I am not approving or disapproving all of the above, I am just saying that they are not expressly enshrined in the Constitution. There are various ways beyond the scope of this post in which many or all of these have been found to be of Constitutional magnitude. Some, such as the Internet example, are subsumed under First Amendment freedom, but the point is that they are not expressly mentioned and could have been handled separately, depending on the methods and styles of legal interpretation and the spirit of liberty at work in the system at the time of decision. As seemingly vague as these two things may seem, they are the most powerful forces controlling legal results in addition to two other broad, and similarly vague things: partisan beliefs and general ideas/concepts about fairness/justice. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 16 13:25:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 22:55:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2404660@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <519265CB.4020407@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2404660@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51951672.6000203@itforchange.net> > But maybe, the community criterion could have been applied..... > (parminder) > > */This shows that you don’t really know what is going on here. There > is a community objection process that is separate from the IO rules. > Perhaps if you became actually involved in ICANN you would learn such > things. (Milton) > /* > [parminder] please read IO's report . To quote "The IO is only entitled to lodge objections on the limited public interest and community grounds" Evidently you are completely wrong in saying that IO could not have applied the community criterion. His report elaborates his consideration of this criterion in the case of closed generics... > *//* > > English speaking people constitute a community whose collective rights > are compromised by allowing, (parminder) > > */[Milton L Mueller] Of course, there is no such things as a > collective right of English speaking people. The ability of people to > make up nonsense “rights” never ceases to amaze me./* > > */. /* > > *//* > (parminder) Yes, I know you dismiss things like cultural rights and linguistic rights. I am sure most other people here do not... 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu May 16 14:40:27 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:40:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I am not surprised at such twist of events if one were to look keenly at US rogue policies of late. The route had been nicely tarred! We had an election dispute in Ivory Coast where a recount would have carried the day. The Obama Administration allied with the French to bomb Côte d'Ivoire and got that country's President ferried to The Hague for trup up charges and had their stooge Ouattara in power. Then came Libya where Muammar Gaddafii was summarily executed for "overstaying in power and killing thousands of his people". We all know that the Libyan leader was killed for venturing to bring out an African alternative to the IMF. Yet we have countries in Africa (like mine, where people cannot freely elect their leaders yet the so called West is silent) Of late, we heard the Obama administration calling for the recount of the election in Venezuela. Why in Venezuela and not Ivory Coast? With alternative social media being a major thread, mainstream outlets like AP the heat beaming to wipe them out and had to adopt an agressive stance in their news gardering not knowing that they were running into the hands of a war mongering administration that will spear no means in clambing on any one that stands on its way. Even if that meant violating the sacred American Constitution that is highly valued the world over. The Obam doctrine is on its course. And I wonder what world he will leave behind. That should be a preoccupation for his memoirs Aaron Agien Nyangkwe is my name On 5/16/13, Paul Lehto wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The point is not that the US state is flawless and holy, [...] To civil >> libertarians, ALL states are capable of such things, at ALL times, and >> therefore one needs institutionalized rights such as the U.S. >> Constitution >> and its Bill of Rights in order to keep them in check. We are certainly >> better off that those rights are enshrined in the constitution than if >> they >> were not. >> >> > At bottom is a list of dozens of recognized CONSTITUTIONAL rights or powers > that are NOT expressly mentioned in the Constitution, but have nevertheless > been held to be constitutionally protected rights or powers. I share this > quickly cobbled together list mainly because of Milton's over broad > statement that because liberty is always at risk everywhere, that we > "therefore" are better off with rights "enshrined in the Constitution than > if they were not." This is not necessarily so because once they are > "enshrined" people seem to think that this enshrining defines the limits of > our rights to the areas enshrined. Even the Constitution itself in the 9th > and 10th amendments expressly reserves other rights to the People and/or > the states. > > Even a quick read of the constitution of the former Soviet Union will show > that it purported to protect and recognize and "enshrine" even more rights > than the US Constitution. At the end of the day, without what is often > called "the spirit of liberty" there is no document or law or constitution > that will protect everybody's liberty in a meaningful way, and on a > long-term basis. > > *The relevance of my list below to Internet Governance is to point to the > ambiguity of potential treaty language regarding the Internet, and the > problem that people will likely treat the treaty language as fully limiting > the scope of rights*. (There are issues no matter whether rights are > enshrined or not, however, and enshrinement is not without its benefits). > It is closer to the truth to say rights that don't harm others are plenary, > and it is the burden of those who wish to burden or prohibit those rights > in any circumstances to justify themselves, rather than the burden of > people to prove the right. But, the foregoing "truth" is true (or > apparent) o*nly to those who believe in this vision of liberty*. There are > many others who, as a matter of practice, do not so believe, and they would > put the burden on proving a right to something even where it does not > infringe on anybody else's rights. > > In the final analysis, if you read the list below of things or rights not > recognized by the US Constitution, and also realize that virtually all of > those below are in fact dealt with on a constitutional basis in some way by > Supreme Courts over the centuries, it leads to the realization that it is > the METHOD OF INTERPRETATION of the Constitution and whether or not this is > done in what I've called "the spirit of liberty" that is really most > important in terms of actual results. This is where the real battles go > on, usually in subtext but oftentimes openly. > > *RIGHTS OR POWERS specifically NOT expressly Mentioned in US Constitution > but nevertheless recognized in significant degree as Constitutional rights > by Supreme Courts.* (i.e. "enshrinement" is not the only route to real > rights) > > 1. The right to marry, > 2. right to travel (considered “virtually unconditional” and > constitutionally guaranteed even though it was expressly in the Articles of > Confederation and omitted from the Constitution), > 3. right to move to different state, > 4. right to emigrate, > 5. right to fair trial, > 6. right to jury of one’s peers, > 7. right against revocation of citizenship, > 8. right to judicial review, > 9. right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, > 10. right to have children, > 11. right to wear clothing of one’s choice, > 12. right to start a business, > 13. right to choice of schooling for children, and > 14. the right to vote (and many others not mentioned here). > 15. right to communicate via the Internet > 16. right to use birth control, > 17. right to form unions, or have consumer rights, > 18. gay rights or disability rights, > 19. right to have sexual relations with anyone (whether married to them or > not), > 20. right of self-defense, > 21. right to personal hairstyle, > 22. right to conscientiously object to violent military service, > 23. reproductive choice rights, > 24. rights of the unborn, > 25. right to be left alone, > 26. rights to medical care, food, housing, and education, and > 27. no right of revolt or revolution (like the Declaration of Independence > asserted as inalienable right) no matter how bad things are. > > *Nothing authorizes, allows or addresses the following in the US > Constitution, which nevertheless exist and are recognized as of > constitutional import: * > > 1. No authorization for Air Force, > 2. no congressional districts, > 3. no electoral *College*, > 4. no Executive orders, > 5. no executive privilege, > 6. no reference to God, legislative Chaplains, etc. (although "Lord" is > mentioned once in text stating the year Constitution was signed), > 7. no indication that impeachment equals possible removal from office, > 8. no prohibition of taxation without representation, (and indeed > Washington D.C. still suffers from this even though it is elsewhere > recognized as a principle) > 9. no specific number of Supreme Court justices, > 10. no paper money authority (only coinage), > 11. no authorization of political parties (and the Founders hated them and > called them “factions”), > 12. no primary elections, > 13. no qualifications for federal judges at all, > 14. no qualifications for federal legislative politicians other than age > and residence, > 15. no separation of church and state clause, > 16. “separation of powers” not explicitly stated, > 17. no “checks and balances” expressly mentioned, > 18. no express power to regulate immigration (only “naturalization” of > citizens). > 19. no rights of peremptory military attack. > 20. And many more which might be listed. > > I am not approving or disapproving all of the above, I am just saying that > they are not expressly enshrined in the Constitution. There are various > ways beyond the scope of this post in which many or all of these have been > found to be of Constitutional magnitude. Some, such as the Internet > example, are subsumed under First Amendment freedom, but the point is that > they are not expressly mentioned and could have been handled separately, > depending on the methods and styles of legal interpretation and the spirit > of liberty at work in the system at the time of decision. > > As seemingly vague as these two things may seem, they are the most powerful > forces controlling legal results in addition to two other broad, and > similarly vague things: partisan beliefs and general ideas/concepts about > fairness/justice. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4965 (cell) > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 18:09:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:09:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Request to stay on topic Message-ID: <20130517000918.0a61fd35@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Whenever you address any tangential topic that is not specifically about the Internet and its governance, but somehow related, please explain the connection to Internet governance that you see explicitly. For reference, here's a copy of the WGIG and Tunis Agenda working definition of Internet governance: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronym expansion WGIG=Working Group on Internet Governance -- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 17 03:13:33 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:13:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD240567E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5195D89D.4080302@gmail.com> Paul thank you for that, it is a treasure trove! Do you have a reference for the work, or is it your own? The US constitution has been one of those documents that have influenced constitutional development around the world.. but less so in recent times. Those founding fathers had some interesting insights and drew on philosophy and were rather worldly. The Kantian enlightened individual, the Montesque separation of powers doctrine (recent developments here ) and the pursuit of happiness (or the good life) have enormous influence. But the US is a global leader, and so its legal ecology is a concern beyond its borders. After the Bush years though national security and freedoms seem to have been tipped in favour of the state and this is a serious concern... Riaz On 2013/05/16 08:04 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 17 03:21:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:21:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?The_Government=92s_War_on_the_Press?= Message-ID: <5195DA84.3060102@gmail.com> [given the global reach of US policies and the extraterritoriality inherent in use of the net, this article raises some concerns about abuse of state power in the US. It is particularlyworrying since many activists use the listserver RISEUP which was affected in a raid - that I had not heard about- and presents a plight that is far from sanguine. The challenge to internet governance, much like the Spanish domain name seizure, isthe extent to which US national interests conflict with their individual interests in circumstances where there is regulation/disciplines in which affected (noncitizens) are affected...From a human rights perspective, the issue is what governance arrangements need to be put in place to maintain the cosmopolitan nature of the internet (in the broadest sense) as well as sensibly manage diversity... ] May 16, 2013 Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google More Sharing Services 8 The AP Seizures and the Frightening Web They've Uncovered The Government’s War on the Press by ALFREDO LOPEZ “Paranoia,” said Woody Allen, “is knowing all the facts.” By that measure, we’re becoming more and more “paranoid” every day. This week, we learned that the Obama Justice Department seized two months of records of at least 20 phone lines used by Associated Press reporters. These include phone lines in the AP’s New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn offices as well as the main AP number in the House of Representatives press gallery, the private phones and cell phones belonging to AP reporters and a fax line in one AP office. The government effected this massive seizure “sometime this year” according to a letter from the Justice Department to AP’s chief counsel this past Friday (May 10). The letter cites relevant “permission” clauses in its “investigative guidelines” and makes clear that it considers the action legal and necessary. In many ways, this is the most blatant act of media information seizure in memory. It affects over 100 AP journalists and the countless people those journalists communicated with by phone during those two months. It violates accepted constitutional guarantees, the concept of freedom of the press and the privacy rights of literally thousands of people. Predictably and justifiably, press, politicians and activists have expressed outrage. But as outrageous as the admitted facts are, the story’s larger implications are even more disturbing. It’s bad enough that the Obama Administration has grossly violated fundamental constitutional rights, acknowledged the violation and defended their legality. Even worse is that likelihood that the intrusion will probably be ruled legal, that it has been ongoing against other targets for some time and that this is only the tip of the intelligence-abuse iceberg. The facts are still tumbling out daily but here’s what we know. While the Justice Department’s letter of notice to AP didn’t provide the reason for the seizure, the date of the seizure or the dates of the data seized, the timing hints strongly that this is tied to a major investigation of “whistle-blowing”. Last year, the AP used unnamed sources in a story about a Central Intelligence Agency effort to disrupt a Yemen-based terrorist plot to bomb an airliner. The AP, at the government’s request, held that story for several days but published it on May 7, 2012 after it was confident the plot had been foiled. Because the AP’s story ran a day before Federal officials were scheduled to announce their “victory”, it’s logical to assume Associated Press honchos knew the government would be unhappy. So they were probably not surprised that, led by the U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen, federal investigators spent a year aggressively searching for the people who leaked the information. That’s vintage Obama. With six government “whistle-blowers” in jail or being prosecuted, federal law-enforcers have prosecuted twice as many whistle-blowers as all previous Administrations combined over the course of two and a quarter centuries. But until now, the media-savvy Obama people have been careful to restrain their pursuit of the corporate press, limiting confrontations to an occasional request or demand for one source revelation. That’s why these revelations are so shocking to media professionals and advocates. As AP’s CEO Gary Pruitt told Attorney General Eric Holder in his letter of complaint this week , “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-months period, provide a road map to AP’s news gathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.” There, in a nutshell, is the problem. For the corporate media, there is such still a thing as “no conceivable right to know”. Up to now, part of Obama’s information policy has been that mainstream media qualifies for First Amendment protection but “alternative” journalists and the news organizations they work for, as well as bloggers, activists, writers and others who work independently of major news organizations and who use the Internet as the free vehicle of communications it was invented to be have absolutely no protections. Since 2009, this government is known to have taken action against Internet activists and truth-tellers: seizing servers, email records and virtually all forms of on-line communications and then prosecuting people in over a dozen cases based on some of those seizures. There’s been very little action taken against the corporate press, which for its part has largely ignored or blacked out any reporting on the government attacks on its smaller media competitors. This “favored status” commercial media has enjoyed has now been trashed. The “protected press” is as exposed as the rest of us. In answering Pruit’s letter, the Justice Department said as much. “We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation,” U.S. Attorney’s Machen spokesman William Miller explained, in a remark that went way beyond the traditional exemption for protecting lives. He added, “…we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.” In fact, there was no urgency involved in the government’s assault on AP’s news operation — the incident in question was over — and seizure of this kind of information has traditionally been allowed only if a subpeona is issued, after the targeted media parties have had a chance to challenge the government intrusion in court. The courts, after all, constitute one of the protections of privacy and free speech we citizens have. Under our Constitution, the courts, not the government, are supposed to decide what is “the right balance,” as Miller put it. Most of us lost those protections with the Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s updated guidelines which allow the government to engage in secret seizure if its investigators believe there is a real “security threat”. In fact, it is only required to announce that seizure when “it is determined that such notification will no longer pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” In other words, they can seize anything without a subpeona if they think they should seize it without a subpeona. That I have learned personally and this is either a disclaimer or a claim to authenticity. Last year, the FBI snatched a server belonging to May First/People Link (my organization) from its location. We believe they were investigating some nut using anonymous servers (servers that don’t maintain records of who used them) to mail threatening emails to students at the University of Pittsburgh. We maintain one such server for our colleagues at Rise-Up. The AP case applies the suspension of our rights to the “established” media, finalizing a remarkably swift collapse of balance of power protections by removing the courts from the equation. It’s a moment described in the famous Civil Rights Movement saying, quoted by Angela Davis: “If they come for me in the morning, they’ll come for you at night.” After years of chipping away (largely without protest or even acknowledgement from the mainstream corporate media), at the rights of what the Administration considers the most dangerous and uncontrollable information source — the Internet and the activists and independent journalists who thrive on it like Wikileaks or Mayfirst, the web hosting service I helped found — they’ve now knocked on the door of the mainstream media. To get a feeling for how dangerous this is, all one must do is trace how these investigations unfold and visualize the investigative web that is developing. First, they get the phone records. In this case, the phone companies apparently just gave it to them. Protestations that these include “only” phone numbers called and nothing else collapse upon careful examination. Seized cell phone records (and their logs of emails, websites visited and texts sent) are now in the Justice Department’s hands along with all the numbers called by over 100 reporters on 20 phone lines. Starting with the phone numbers called, investigators can then go to commercial email providers (like Google’s Gmail) and seek records of everyone who the reporters contacted. After all, they can now search the providers’ databases against the acquired names and phone numbers! Email on AP’s servers wasn’t seized — that could never be done “secretly”. But some AP reporters probably use their non-company email as well and investigators can go after that. Internet providers are under enormous pressure to give up those records and many, like Google, will do so voluntarily upon official government request. They’ve already done it for the Chinese government to help it go after its critics. So anybody who gets a phone call from one of the seized lines during this period can now be investigated more aggressively without subpeonas using the powers of investigation the government already has and information it has already gathered in secret from reporters who had promised them anonymity. Where is the limit? Without a court hearing, there is none. If an AP reporter called your phone or emailed you from a targeted cell phone, the government now knows it and your phone number (and possibly email address) is now part of the investigation. That gathered information now includes your name, address, phone number, calls you received and calls you made. If they got to the email, all of that is theirs. No matter what those phone calls or email messages from your cell phone are about, they are a part of a government investigation into a major security leak. Once you’re in the mix, the government can then declare you an investigation “target” and legally seize read all your email and seize all the email of anybody your wrote. All of this activity is legally covered and, based on past government practice, can be done without informing you. What’s more there are now indications that the government isn’t stopping there. According to the Washington Post, you don’t even need to be part of an investigation. “Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications,” the Post reported in its extraordinary series on government intelligence. “The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases.” The Guardian’s Glen Greenwald argues that such numbers are only possible if the government is recording every phone call, text and email being transmitted in this country. Several FBI whistle-blowers and former agents, he points out, have attested to that scope of activity. To say you will be part of a prosecution or that the investigation would reach such lengths may, at this point, border on paranoia. But not long ago most of us would have considered paranoid the idea that such collection of data is even taking place. “Mass surveillance is the hallmark of a tyrannical political culture,” Greenwald wrote. To deny the danger in all this is to trust that the government won’t abuse this power or consider your completely legal activities to be dangerous. Does the Obama Administration deserve that trust? Its stated position is that the government can collect and use any information of this type if there is a security reason to do so. The issue is what is a “security reason” and, since courts have been effectively removed from the process, that definition is completely in the hands of the Justice Department, Homeland Security, the FBI and the National Security Agency. If one of those agencies says you have no right to privacy, you don’t. There are many people in this country working in opposition to the government. Many of them oppose policies and challenge laws. Many of them have relationships with similar activists in other countries and take up issues that affect those other countries. Should we really feel comfortable giving some government functionary the power to decide if our activities are “dangerous” or “pose a threat”? This is an Administration that has criminally charged Internet activists for violating terms of service agreements, smeared the reputations of countless legitimate activists in all kinds of movements and kept scores of people in Guantamo’s prison for years without charges, in most cases knowing and even conceding that they are innocent of any. Does that track record offer any assurance that they will be judicious and restrained with your information? Should we trust them with the powers they have amassed? Clearly not, because, given the facts we already know, mistrust isn’t paranoia; it’s knowing the facts. /*ALFREDO LOPEZ* is a member of ThisCantBeHappening! , the new independent three-time Project Censored Award-winning online alternative newspaper. / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 17 03:04:14 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:04:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5195D66E.8080704@gmail.com> Noted. Apologies for being curt... On 2013/05/16 08:02 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 05:29:17 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:29:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] use of Internet for making peace in the world (was Re: Request to stay on topic) In-Reply-To: References: <20130517000918.0a61fd35@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130517112917.4f68cf62@quill.bollow.ch> Kossi Amessinou wrote: > I call our responsability on the use of Internet for making peace in > the world! Are we ready to work for that? I think yes! [..] > I wait for all suggestion!!!! My suggestion is to start this important work with a focus on two specific key challenges: Poverty and greenhouse gas emissions. For the specifics of my suggestion, please refer to my Internet-Draft draft-bollow-wisdomtaskforce which is also published on http://WisdomTaskForce.org In addition to these two key "peace" challenges, WisdomTaskForce will also from the beginning do some work on Internet governance topics, which are arguably less important in themselves, but may be important for the development of WisdomTaskForce itself by attracting people who are experienced in Internet-based consensus processes such as those conducted regularly e.g. at IETF, at the RIRs, and in the FOSS movement. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronym expansion IETF=Internet Engineering task Force RIR=Regional Internet Registry FOSS=Free and Open Source Software -- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri May 17 08:16:13 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:16:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: <5195D66E.8080704@gmail.com> References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> <5195D66E.8080704@gmail.com> Message-ID: That I agree Paul. But what is frightful is that we are sought trying to see the US replace the defunct Soviet Union in clamping on rights as enacted by the Bush Administration and currently being executed by the Obama's. Me think that with the inevitable global shift of global power to China (it is a truism) it was but good for the US to leave a landmark as global promoter of free and fair choice of leadership in all countries. Aaron On 5/17/13, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Noted. Apologies for being curt... > On 2013/05/16 08:02 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >> wrote: > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 08:22:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 05:22:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Associated Press condemns US telephone record seizure In-Reply-To: References: <5191D3FE.7020002@gmail.com> <519324BF.6060603@gmail.com> <5194F00C.3070200@gmail.com> <5195D66E.8080704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130517122218.GA7470@hserus.net> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [17/05/13 14:16 +0200]: >But what is frightful is that we are sought trying to see the US >replace the defunct Soviet Union in clamping on rights as enacted by >the Bush Administration and currently being executed by the Obama's. But equally we seem to be seeing that the removal of gaddafi was a murder plot because he "created an arab alternative to the IMF"? Nobody at all is holding a brief for the USA here, or for any other country, but turning this discussion back to internet governance might be a welcome move for all concerned. thanks suresh -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 09:19:30 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:19:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20130517151930.3c9faed4@quill.bollow.ch> Catherine Roy wrote: > I do not believe it is possible to evacuate DRM support from HTML5 It may turn out to be impossible to effectively influence W3C's decisions on this, but it certainly is possible to define a "profile", i.e. a precise specification of the nice and large subset of HTML5 which is acceptable from the perspective of people who value freedom: http://FreedomHTML.org Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 17 09:50:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:50:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based Message-ID: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who participates in its social construction and technological evolution (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be any discrimination in relation to the services available to users (the end-to-end principle) and the Internet’s paradigm of open standards are invaluable principles, which reflect ethical propositions. What makes this approach, I feel, more sustainable in the context of Internet ethics, is the fact that these considerations are not subjective – these are the principles under which the Internet was originally built. And, we are fortunate that the ethical standards of the Internet’s architects reflected such ideals that have subsequently been transposed to the architecture of the Internet. Source: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/thinking-about-ethics-internet-space Are we all in agreement with these principles, and with the assertion that the Internet has been originally built according to these principles? 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 17 09:57:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 19:27:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <13eb2c78657.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Fully in agreement and thanks for sharing --srs (htc one x) On 17 May 2013 7:20:56 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: > > ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical > considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the > Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who > participates in its social construction and technological evolution > (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be > any discrimination in relation to the services available to users > (the end-to-end principle) and the Internet’s paradigm of open > standards are invaluable principles, which reflect ethical > propositions. > > What makes this approach, I feel, more sustainable in the context of > Internet ethics, is the fact that these considerations are not > subjective – these are the principles under which the Internet was > originally built. And, we are fortunate that the ethical standards of > the Internet’s architects reflected such ideals that have > subsequently been transposed to the architecture of the Internet. > > Source: > http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/thinking-about-ethics-internet-space > > Are we all in agreement with these principles, and with the assertion > that the Internet has been originally built according to these > principles? > > 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri May 17 10:04:12 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:04:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <13eb2c78657.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> <13eb2c78657.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I concurr. And thanks for sharing. Aaron On 5/17/13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fully in agreement and thanks for sharing > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 17 May 2013 7:20:56 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >> From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: >> >> ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical >> considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the >> Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who >> participates in its social construction and technological evolution >> (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be >> any discrimination in relation to the services available to users >> (the end-to-end principle) and the Internet’s paradigm of open >> standards are invaluable principles, which reflect ethical >> propositions. >> >> What makes this approach, I feel, more sustainable in the context of >> Internet ethics, is the fact that these considerations are not >> subjective – these are the principles under which the Internet was >> originally built. And, we are fortunate that the ethical standards of >> the Internet’s architects reflected such ideals that have >> subsequently been transposed to the architecture of the Internet. >> >> Source: >> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/thinking-about-ethics-internet-space >> >> Are we all in agreement with these principles, and with the assertion >> that the Internet has been originally built according to these >> principles? >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri May 17 10:54:57 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:54:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, Thanks for sharing this. I admit I'm puzzled by one statement in Konstantinos' blog post (I put him in copy as I don't know if he's on this list), i.e.: On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: > > ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical > considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the > Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who > participates in its social construction and technological evolution > (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be > any discrimination in relation to the services available to users > (the end-to-end principle) > I'm not entirely clear how one goes from the end-to-end principle (at least as described in J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark, "End-to-end arguments in system design", http://web.mit.edu/saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf, to the statement that "there should not be any discrimination in relation to the services available to users". Perhaps Konstantinos or others would care to comment / elaborate? Ciao, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 11:08:02 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:38:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <13eb3086f59.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I dare say it is a simplified version of the network neutrality argument, at least the David Isenberg / Susan Crawford version of it. That argument does get rather muddled with free speech ideas so that I have seen advocates of it, at various times, complain about inspection of email for spam filtering, DPI to automatically detect malware traffic etc. So.. The basic principles are sound and they are mom and apple pie, definitely worth supporting, but there are more than enough devils lurking in the details when we delve deeper into more nuanced statements --srs (htc one x) On 17 May 2013 8:24:57 PM Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Norbert, > > Thanks for sharing this. I admit I'm puzzled by one statement in > Konstantinos' blog post (I put him in copy as I don't know if he's on this > list), i.e.: > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: > > > > ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical > > considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the > > Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who > > participates in its social construction and technological evolution > > (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be > > any discrimination in relation to the services available to users > > (the end-to-end principle) > > > > I'm not entirely clear how one goes from the end-to-end principle (at least > as described in J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark, "End-to-end > arguments in system design", > http://web.mit.edu/saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf, to the > statement that "there should not be any discrimination in relation to the > services available to users". > > Perhaps Konstantinos or others would care to comment / elaborate? > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it > in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chashraf at ucla.edu Fri May 17 11:17:32 2013 From: chashraf at ucla.edu (Cameran Ashraf) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:17:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> <13eb2c78657.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51964A0C.70902@ucla.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, It seems interesting to me that a technology as diverse as the Internet/networking protocols with such a non-linear history could be said to be based off of certain ethical principles. Certainly it could be said that there are philosophical assumptions embedded within these technologies, but does it make sense to assume that ethical standards are as well? The same protocols which enables "everyone" to have access to it likewise enables authoritarian regimes to censor or restrict information, conduct surveillance, etc. It seems to me that boiling down the multiplicity of reasons for the Internet's original development (and its founding logics and technologies) to ethical principles which align with the way we *want* to see the Internet is problematic. My $0.02, and my first message to the list! Best, Cameran Ph.D. Student Department of Geography University of California, Los Angeles Nyangkwe Agien Aaron: > I concurr. And thanks for sharing. > > Aaron > > On 5/17/13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Fully in agreement and thanks for sharing >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> On 17 May 2013 7:20:56 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of >>> ISOC: >>> >>> ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical >>> considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to >>> the Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish >>> who participates in its social construction and technological >>> evolution (equality of participation), the principle that there >>> should not be any discrimination in relation to the services >>> available to users (the end-to-end principle) and the >>> Internet’s paradigm of open standards are invaluable >>> principles, which reflect ethical propositions. >>> >>> What makes this approach, I feel, more sustainable in the >>> context of Internet ethics, is the fact that these >>> considerations are not subjective – these are the principles >>> under which the Internet was originally built. And, we are >>> fortunate that the ethical standards of the Internet’s >>> architects reflected such ideals that have subsequently been >>> transposed to the architecture of the Internet. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/thinking-about-ethics-internet-space >>> >>> >>> Are we all in agreement with these principles, and with the assertion >>> that the Internet has been originally built according to these >>> principles? >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJRlkoGAAoJEImZDQJOxdf1v28H/2Cs37gfl2DAxPRM+VBTIidw XrGJjxVYpnprx0184lo1Gk/eJ7I/Rbs4TOdxw0WzcSxRCtQ3TQLB2SOor3kiW+Q1 h4mWayYyi/4ZI21SPf82xj3zmESm9/8Xz46iY7YBkffWdabO9QKaUSmSjG8QfF9f tnhzbVfk6aSSYhfGhREO6ZesjIyC0us9sD37Ot2EmYqGeNPpz2JHE8OQWpadmPLD 9PEJfcWi6huWNPx6wd0+iN7llKTsNjYi4i/E5VWAWOo7WOLSZ0MufPYz4cnLRcQ7 WMSHIEsdVv1App9D+WscBFbJunfX4d2TlDNttNLtqXuJR/wObqv2VqnkfJt4y+g= =M7Ij -----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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 17 12:04:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:04:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <01c001ce5318$485d2ef0$d9178cd0$@gmail.com> While I think the approach you are presenting here Norbert is a useful one and while it is hard on the face of it to disagree with the Komaitis/ISOC formulation there is a serious problem I think in accepting this at face value (BTW, for those with long memories what follows was the basis of a long and useful discussion pre-Geneva WSIS... and provided the basis for much of the conceptual formulation and background to community informatics. The statement that "everyone should have access to the Internet" might seem quite uncontroversial. However, for me "access" is a necessary but not a sufficient condition on which to build an ethical approach to the Internet. The value of the Internet comes not I think, from simply having "access" (in official statistics concerning LDC's often simply meaning some form of locally available connectivity) but rather in having the means to make meaningful or effective use of the Internet. For most of us educated, middle class, middle income, in the Developed World there is little or no gap between having access and being able to make effective use. We have readily to hand the education, financial means, social and economic context to transform access into uses that are of value and meaning in our daily lives. For many however--the poor, the marginalized, many and particularly rural dwellers in LDC's, those living with physical disabilities and so on, simply having "Internet access" without for example having parallel access to the literacy and numeracy skills, financial resources, assistive devices, access to software and hardware tools, access to social networks and economic structures and so on to translate simple "access" into the types of transformative applications and uses that so many have and are benefiting from -- renders having Internet "access" into a meaningless and in fact, a grotesque joke. A "joke", similar to the starving child having "access" to the delights of a bountiful feast through the window of an upscale restaurant but being separated by this physical, economic and social barrier from being able to partake/benefit. Since it is precisely overcoming this gap between "access" and the opportunity to make "effective use" of the Internet that has been the objective of so much of the work in community informatics and ITC for Development over the last 15 years or so, it is thus I admit a bit surprising if not astonishing to see that this formulation should be re-appearing now. To add a bit, yes, perhaps the "access" formulation was present at the beginning -- not too surprising given the Internet's origins, but with the opportunities that the Internet presents having been magnificently extended both in variety and in scale I think that it is necessary to move beyond this narrow approach and recognize the necessity of ensuring the opportunity for the broadest base of effective use which in turn implies a commitment to a whole range of measures to ensure such uses including training, applications design, financial supports, linguistic intervention, assistive devices as necessary etc.etc. I would most certainly hope that an "inclusive" statement of "ethical principles on which the Internet is based" would recognize that for many there is a gap which needs to be overcome between having "Internet access" and being able to make meaningful and effective use of the Internet. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:51 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based From the blog of Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor of ISOC: ...Internet technology and platforms are based on some ethical considerations: the fact that everyone should have access to the Internet, the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who participates in its social construction and technological evolution (equality of participation), the principle that there should not be any discrimination in relation to the services available to users (the end-to-end principle) and the Internet’s paradigm of open standards are invaluable principles, which reflect ethical propositions. What makes this approach, I feel, more sustainable in the context of Internet ethics, is the fact that these considerations are not subjective – these are the principles under which the Internet was originally built. And, we are fortunate that the ethical standards of the Internet’s architects reflected such ideals that have subsequently been transposed to the architecture of the Internet. Source: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/05/thinking-about-ethics-internet-space Are we all in agreement with these principles, and with the assertion that the Internet has been originally built according to these principles? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 17 13:04:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:04:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <+pMmIyYIMmlRFADa@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <20130517155056.28d3f72e at quill.bollow.ch>, at 15:50:56 on Fri, 17 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >the fact that the Internet does not distinguish who > participates in its social construction and technological evolution > (equality of participation), Sentient routers?? >the principle that there should not be > any discrimination in relation to the services available to users > (the end-to-end principle) No, end-to-end is much more about ensuring the lack of NAT, which makes inbound connections very difficult. [Lack of] discrimination on content is usually called "Network Neutrality". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 17 13:06:38 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:06:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethical principles on which the Internet is based In-Reply-To: <01c001ce5318$485d2ef0$d9178cd0$@gmail.com> References: <20130517155056.28d3f72e@quill.bollow.ch> <01c001ce5318$485d2ef0$d9178cd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <01c001ce5318$485d2ef0$d9178cd0$@gmail.com>, at 09:04:44 on Fri, 17 May 2013, michael gurstein writes >The statement that "everyone should have access to the Internet" might >seem quite uncontroversial. Except for those who think that stalkers, sex offenders and other forms of online criminals should not be allowed access to the Internet while in jail, or even perhaps afterwards. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri May 17 14:48:51 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:48:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130517151930.3c9faed4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> <20130517151930.3c9faed4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51967B93.6030505@catherine-roy.net> On 17/05/2013 9:19 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > It may turn out to be impossible to effectively influence W3C's > decisions on this, but it certainly is possible to define a "profile", > i.e. a precise specification of the nice and large subset of HTML5 > which is acceptable from the perspective of people who value freedom: > > http://FreedomHTML.org Apologies for not responding sooner; I have been rather ill this week. I think this is an intriguing idea and have subscribed to your mailing list and hope others do as well. I am relieved you are not proposing a fork; the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group[1] working on its own version of HTML5 for the last year has meant additional work to try to keep things coherent. I think your initiative needs to be widely publicized, particularly within communities that have the necessary expertise to contribute on a technical level. However, I still think, as I have stated previously, that an alternate proposal to the EME spec would go a long way to offering alternative solutions for those who need them. Someone (apologies, I do not remember who) mentioned earlier in this thread that a spec is a spec and still needs adoption. I would point out that EME is already in use even though it has barely made it to First Public Working Draft (but then, that has been the case with much of HTML5 as well). Currently, Chrome has preliminary support for EME, and Netflix, which relied on Silverlight in the past, is using it to power its current browser-based video player. I am not pro-DRM, quite the contrary, and I do hope CSIGC rallies with others who have publicly deplored the W3C's advancement of EME, but I do not think it is going away any time soon. So perhaps your new forum can also contribute to proposing alternatives. I would be happy to help publicize FreeHTML.org if you think that can be helpful. Best regards, Catherine [1] http://www.whatwg.org/ -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri May 17 16:50:15 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:50:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: Likewise, I spend most of my time at ICANN within the GNSO. The GNSO itself is very much multi-stakeholder - besides the range of civil society groups represented by NCSG councillors like myself, there is a wide range of commercial groups represented, and the GNSO spends a reasonable amount of its time liaising with other groups such as the GAC, SSAC, the ICANN board, etc. But I have very little idea about what actually goes on within other silos. The problem is not so much constituency-ism, or lack of engagement with other stakeholders, but lack of engagement with other silos. I spend lots of time engaging beyond my constituency at ICANN -- but engaging with the other constituencies within the GNSO silo consumes enough time and energy I have not much left over for engagement beyond the GNSO silo. But this engagement beyond the silo is crucial for a functional organisation and process. Regards David On 16/05/2013, at 6:46 AM, Keith Davidson wrote: > > > On 16/05/2013 8:05 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: >> I've always been in favour of spending the whole week ("helicopter >> lobbying" isn't my scene), although the start has been suffering from >> significant creep in recent years. Once upon a time you might get away >> with arriving on Saturday, for participating Sunday, but now it's been >> pushed back from even that (in Beijing four tracks on Saturday, and >> others even earlier). >> >> The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has >> become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to >> attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend >> others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously. > > > Exactly my point. > > At a personal level - I spend most of my time in the ccNSO silo, and have a good understanding of the ccTLD communities views on all sorts of issues, take for example, WHOIS. I have some idea of the GAC's view, and no idea of any other constituency views on this topic. It would make more sense to have the multistakeholder dialogue on this topic so I could appreciate the range of opinion. > > At an operational level - the WHOIS review team came to an ICANN meeting and had to do 11 separate presentations to work through all constituencies - surely this is a waste of everyones time, most especially the review teams, and surely it is symptomatic of being non-multistakeholder in nature as it is a series of silo'ised discussions. > > Cheers > > Keith > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 17 18:31:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 00:31:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <51967B93.6030505@catherine-roy.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130510104628.17336c5f@quill.bollow.ch> <518DBCDA.7090908@itforchange.net> <518DF2A4.405@itforchange.net> <20130511164516.58c9da4d@quill.bollow.ch> <518EA058.5060804@catherine-roy.net> <20130511221357.759282a5@quill.bollow.ch> <5A26CE78-7DBC-4682-8B0F-91010892B08C@ella.com> <20130513114526.656b36b5@quill.bollow.ch> <4AF0F914-654A-473D-AA7F-C55942F5D97B@hserus.net> <20130514211434.7c4bf0bc@quill.bollow.ch> <5192BB4E.1010509@catherine-roy.net> <20130517151930.3c9faed4@quill.bollow.ch> <51967B93.6030505@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20130518003148.7fdb67ae@quill.bollow.ch> Catherine Roy wrote: > On 17/05/2013 9:19 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > It may turn out to be impossible to effectively influence W3C's > > decisions on this, but it certainly is possible to define a > > "profile", i.e. a precise specification of the nice and large > > subset of HTML5 which is acceptable from the perspective of people > > who value freedom: > > > > http://FreedomHTML.org > > Apologies for not responding sooner; I have been rather ill this week. Ouch... I hope you're feeling better now, and I'm sending my best wishes to get 100% well really soon. > I think this is an intriguing idea and have subscribed to your > mailing list and hope others do as well. Thank you! > I am relieved you are not proposing a fork Of course not... I'm sure that everyone who has experience in standardization will agree that when you want a subset of a spec that exists or is being developed, you don't fork, you define a profile. (Warning: Long democratization / human rights oriented rant ahead.) More importantly, standardization processes have always been tech-driven and industry-driven. As tech standardization is becoming important for governance of important aspects of society, we need to think about how democratization of this governance aspect can be achieved in general (as opposed to only addressing points of major contention that could potentially drive a major fork.) I don't see it as a realistic possibility for many non-technical stakeholders to find an effective way in which they can participate in technical standards development. Therefore, the tech-driven and industry-driven bias is not going to go away. However I see it as realistically possible to add a democratization layer on top of technical standardization, in that profiles can be defined corresponding to social and policy perspectives, thereby creating choices that are meaningful not only to technical specialists but to everyone who has an opinion on the relative importance of different policy objectives. For example, what is more important, the movie industry (with its jobs and profits and huge earning potential for the few superstars) or human rights that are violated by “encrypted media extensions”? This isn't really just a binary choice, there's a whole spectrum of choices for what might be considered an appropriate balance between the interests of marginalized individuals and marginalized communities (including in particular the specific need of persons with disabilities) on one hand and “content industry” business interests on the other hand. Eventually there could be a whole series of precisely specified potential choices, reflecting different levels of strictness of technical requirements on websites in relation to invasive potential practices driven by business interests of the content industry, privacy-invasive marketing oriented business interests, etc. Then the processes of parliamentary democracy can be used in each country to choose among these well-defined policy options the one that is going to be made a requirement for business websites and other widely used websites. Certainly all those websites should really be accessible in order to allow persons with disabilities to fully participate in online life. Governments may generally not currently be very active in setting norms in this area, but according to Article 9 of the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, they actually have an obligation to “take appropriate measures to *ensure* (my emphasis) to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to... including information and communication technologies...”. Now, as the first step I'm proposing a profile to support the simple binary choice between “FreedomHTML” and “HTML that may possibly contain elements which are harmful to freedom principles”. I do not expect that choice to be of great interest to many national parliaments. But I see this as a kind of proof of concept for the idea of layering on top of the tech-driven and industry-driven process for developing technical specifications, a very different kind of process of promoting specific profile choices on the basis of broader public interest concerns, including in particular human rights concerns. > However, I still think, as I have stated previously, that an > alternate proposal to the EME spec would go a long way to offering > alternative solutions for those who need them. Someone (apologies, I > do not remember who) mentioned earlier in this thread that a spec is > a spec and still needs adoption. I would point out that EME is > already in use even though it has barely made it to First Public > Working Draft (but then, that has been the case with much of HTML5 as > well). Currently, Chrome has preliminary support for EME, and > Netflix, which relied on Silverlight in the past, is using it to > power its current browser-based video player. > > I am not pro-DRM, quite the contrary, and I do hope CSIGC rallies > with others who have publicly deplored the W3C's advancement of EME, > but I do not think it is going away any time soon. So perhaps your > new forum can also contribute to proposing alternatives. Let's discuss these thoughts on the FreedomHTML list, in a few days (giving time to allow some more people to join the list before really starting the debates). > I would be happy to help publicize FreeHTML.org if you think that can > be helpful. Very very helpful - this initiative needs all the help of that type that it can get! So thank you so much in advance. 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sat May 18 04:14:28 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 09:14:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] use of Internet for making peace in the world (was Re: Request to stay on topic) In-Reply-To: <20130517112917.4f68cf62@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130517000918.0a61fd35@quill.bollow.ch> <20130517112917.4f68cf62@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 to Norbert's opinion. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 17, 2013 10:30 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Kossi Amessinou wrote: > > > I call our responsability on the use of Internet for making peace in > > the world! Are we ready to work for that? I think yes! > [..] > > I wait for all suggestion!!!! > > My suggestion is to start this important work with a focus on two > specific key challenges: Poverty and greenhouse gas emissions. > > For the specifics of my suggestion, please refer to my Internet-Draft > draft-bollow-wisdomtaskforce which is also published on > http://WisdomTaskForce.org > > In addition to these two key "peace" challenges, WisdomTaskForce will > also from the beginning do some work on Internet governance topics, > which are arguably less important in themselves, but may be important > for the development of WisdomTaskForce itself by attracting people who > are experienced in Internet-based consensus processes such as those > conducted regularly e.g. at IETF, at the RIRs, and in the FOSS > movement. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ** Acronym expansion > IETF=Internet Engineering task Force > RIR=Regional Internet Registry > FOSS=Free and Open Source Software > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat May 18 07:48:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 07:48:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited=85?= Message-ID: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> A interesting article from Seth Godin: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/05/its-thomas-midgeley-day.html (Although I expect that idea that business can do rather bad things in the name of innovation in not new to this mailing list...) FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Email did not contain cookies, tracking pixels, embedded scripts, or any other innovations at the time of its composition. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 18 09:13:56 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 09:13:56 -0400 Subject: ICANN's "constituency silos" (was: Re: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal) In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: On May 17, 2013, at 4:50 PM, David Cake wrote: > Likewise, I spend most of my time at ICANN within the GNSO. The GNSO itself is very much multi-stakeholder - besides the range of civil society groups represented by NCSG councillors like myself, there is a wide range of commercial groups represented, and the GNSO spends a reasonable amount of its time liaising with other groups such as the GAC, SSAC, the ICANN board, etc. But I have very little idea about what actually goes on within other silos. The problem is not so much constituency-ism, or lack of engagement with other stakeholders, but lack of engagement with other silos. I spend lots of time engaging beyond my constituency at ICANN -- but engaging with the other constituencies within the GNSO silo consumes enough time and energy I have not much left over for engagement beyond the GNSO silo. But this engagement beyond the silo is crucial for a functional organisation and process. > ... > On 16/05/2013, at 6:46 AM, Keith Davidson wrote: >> On 16/05/2013 8:05 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: >>> ... >>> The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has >>> become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to >>> attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend >>> others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously. >> >> Exactly my point. >> >> At a personal level - I spend most of my time in the ccNSO silo, and have a good understanding of the ccTLD communities views on all sorts of issues, take for example, WHOIS. I have some idea of the GAC's view, and no idea of any other constituency views on this topic. It would make more sense to have the multistakeholder dialogue on this topic so I could appreciate the range of opinion. >> >> At an operational level - the WHOIS review team came to an ICANN meeting and had to do 11 separate presentations to work through all constituencies - surely this is a waste of everyones time, most especially the review teams, and surely it is symptomatic of being non-multistakeholder in nature as it is a series of silo'ised discussions. This constiuentcy-based structuring of policy input is unique to ICANN (at least among the commonly recognized set of Internet organizations); while there are "areas" and "tracks" in IETF and RIR meetings, in the end, the actual discussion of a given draft takes place in a public forum following a fairly well-understood process flow. There are certainly many collections of folks who get together separately in the hallways and over meals, but in the end there are specified times during the meeting when each document is brought forth for consideration and discussion by all who are interested. I have known folks of similar views on a given doc to make joint statements in such sessions (to make clear that their perspective is recognized as a common view), but primarily the discussion of proposals focus on the pros and cons of the proposal and any suggested changes that are on the table. ICANN's original structure was to have policy development delegated to a Protocol Support Organization (PSO), an Address Support Organization (ASO), and a DNSO (Domain Name Support Organization) operating in this fashion, leaving ICANN itself in an oversight and coordination role. The restructuring of ICANN to instead be constituency-aligned and with DNS policy development within ICANN (as set by ICANN's initial Board in the Singapore 1999 meeting) avoided a difficult decision in having to select a single independent organization from the applicants to serve as the DNSO, but the full implications for open and transparent multistakeholder policy development remains to be seen. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Present (and objected to the change) at the 1999 meeting. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 09:22:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 18:52:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> Message-ID: <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> On Saturday 18 May 2013 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > A interesting article from Seth Godin: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/05/its-thomas-midgeley-day.html > (Although I expect that idea that business can do rather bad things in the name of innovation in not new to this mailing list...) A very good warning against giving big business a veto over public policy decisions, which is what multistakeholderism essentially is, in the manner it is propagated in global IG today. We will live to repent it, and those who are pushing it in this manner would be responsible, which includes a big part of the so called civil society. I can simply not get over clear statements during WCIT that Google wasnt an equal stakeholder, which it must be, because it hadnt a vote as govs had... One sees that kind of sentiment becoming pretty mainstream among many global IG actors. parminder > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Email did not contain cookies, tracking pixels, embedded scripts, or any other > innovations at the time of its composition. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat May 18 10:01:01 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 15:01:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: In message , at 17:50:15 on Fri, 17 May 2013, David Cake writes >Likewise, I spend most of my time at ICANN within the GNSO. The GNSO >itself is very much multi-stakeholder - besides the range of civil >society groups represented by NCSG councillors like myself, there is a >wide range of commercial groups represented, According to Sala's recent rule, which I agree with, if there's not a significant presence from government throughout, I'm not sure it qualifies as "multi-stakeholder". >and the GNSO spends a reasonable amount of its time liaising with other >groups such as the GAC, SSAC, the ICANN board, etc. Because of the constituency-ism. >But I have very little idea about what actually goes on within other >silos. Because of the constituency-ism. Someone posted recently about the WHOIS review and the grand tour round a dozen silos that this triggered. A non-constituency approach would have a "WHOIS track" that everyone had time to schedule into the week. >The problem is not so much constituency-ism, or lack of engagement with >other stakeholders, but lack of engagement with other silos. That's a bit like saying "if I jump out of an airplane the reason I die isn't so much the lack of a parachute but the hardness of the ground". >I spend lots of time engaging beyond my constituency at ICANN -- but >engaging with the other constituencies within the GNSO silo consumes >enough time and energy I have not much left over for engagement beyond >the GNSO silo. But this engagement beyond the silo is crucial for a >functional organisation and process. I agree, and whenever I attend an ICANN meeting it's a week of 18 hour days trying to cram in as much engagement with multiple silos and attendees as possible. There are too many people who use the breaks (whether blank sessions, lunch or the Gala) to cosy up to people they meet frequently during the other 49 weeks of the year. Or even worse, treat the breaks as a way to "get away from it all", or catch up on email from their day-job. Yes, I probably work too hard, and take it all too seriously, but how else can one get a useful view of everything? >> On 16/05/2013 8:05 a.m., Roland Perry wrote: >>> I've always been in favour of spending the whole week ("helicopter >>> lobbying" isn't my scene), although the start has been suffering from >>> significant creep in recent years. Once upon a time you might get away >>> with arriving on Saturday, for participating Sunday, but now it's been >>> pushed back from even that (in Beijing four tracks on Saturday, and >>> others even earlier). >>> >>> The problem with attending different silos is the way the agenda has >>> become increasingly arranged around constituency-ism (so if you want to >>> attend "your" constituency then you can't do that as well attend >>> others), and with as many as ten tracks simultaneously. >> >> Exactly my point. >> >> At a personal level - I spend most of my time in the ccNSO silo, and >>have a good understanding of the ccTLD communities views on all sorts >>of issues, take for example, WHOIS. I have some idea of the GAC's >>view, and no idea of any other constituency views on this topic. It >>would make more sense to have the multistakeholder dialogue on this >>topic so I could appreciate the range of opinion. >> >> At an operational level - the WHOIS review team came to an ICANN >>meeting and had to do 11 separate presentations to work through all >>constituencies - surely this is a waste of everyones time, most >>especially the review teams, and surely it is symptomatic of being >>non-multistakeholder in nature as it is a series of silo'ised discussions. >> >> Cheers >> >> Keith -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 18 11:40:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 11:40:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 18 May 2013 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> A interesting article from Seth Godin: >> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/05/its-thomas-midgeley-day.html >> (Although I expect that idea that business can do rather bad things in the >> name of innovation in not new to this mailing list...) > > > A very good warning against giving big business a veto over public policy > decisions, which is what multistakeholderism essentially is, in the manner > it is propagated in global IG today. This is not the case in any of the fora I have ever been to (remotely or in person) Would you care to back up your assertion with an example? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 18 12:36:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:06:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> On Saturday 18 May 2013 09:10 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> A very good warning against giving big business a veto over public policy >> decisions, which is what multistakeholderism essentially is, in the manner >> it is propagated in global IG today. > This is not the case in any of the fora I have ever been to (remotely > or in person) Would you care to back up your assertion with an > example? Yes, I have an example. You spoke on this elist about Google having a vote at WCIT.... By that logic of course the many other big businesses present there would also have a vote, along with a plenty of google funded NGOs... At WCIT things get decided by consensus.... And this scenario has so many votes for big business... That of course constitutes a veto. An issue cannot pass the IGF MAG if big business doesnt agree to it - so it cant even make the agenda without big business's consent..... (IT for Change had proposed a workshop on "Regulating global Internet businesses - Role for global frameworks'. MAG did not find it an appropriate topic for discussion at the IGF. Funny, because, almost everyone I meet outside the charmed IG circle thinks that this is 'the' thing that needs to be done something about, at a global level.) You can see how multistakeholderism is emerging as a safety value against public policy controls over the free reign that Internet businesses will like to have, and largely has today. All this is very problematic for the future of democracy... And we are becoming either co- conspirators to this or silent spectators 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 18 12:47:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 18:47:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions Message-ID: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> Hello all, This is to an extend an invitation to participants from the IGC and IRP to join Best Bits participants in working on a draft proposal that we intend to put to next week's IGF open consultation meeting. The initiative for this proposal comes out of what happened at the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this week, when Brazil's proposal for a seventh opinion of the meeting, titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance", failed mainly due to lack of time. I won't say anything more about its substantive content here (though that is a worthy subject for a separate thread), but you can download the draft opinion at http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en or read it online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit. Almost all stakeholders at WTPF agreed that the opinion should be considered further, but there is a question as to where this should happen. Two options are that the opinion would be finalised by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet policy (CWG-Internet), which is government-only and meets behind closed doors, or that it would go to the IGF. In terms of our ability to have input into the text of the opinion, the latter is obviously the better option. But various developing countries objected to this, correctly, on the basis that the IGF does not have the ability to conclude formal outputs. The draft proposal addresses this tension, by proposing a new output-oriented main session that would enable the IGF to facilitate the finalisation of the draft opinion, but without requiring changes to the IGF that would enable it to negotiate formal recommendations. I won't repeat everything in the proposal, but in short, the main session would aim to produce a "multistakeholder opinion" that would be non-binding, would be an output at the IGF rather than of the IGF, and would be endorsed individually rather than being attributed to the IGF as a whole. If (after reading it!) you would like to discuss the ideas in the proposal in general, you can do so on this list and/or on the Best Bits list, but if you would like to suggest concrete textual changes to the proposal, you can do so on this pad, which currently contains a first draft: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions The deadline for finalising the proposal is short because the IGF open consultation commences on Tuesday. Therefore we are accepting input on the text of the proposal only until 9am Monday, and shortly thereafter it will be opened for endorsements via the Best Bits website. The proposal will be presented at the open consultation meeting on behalf of however many organisations or individuals have endorsed it at that time. Note that this proposal is intended to be a fairly modest yet important step forward towards tangible outputs, but the "multistakeholder opinion" process isn't in itself put forward as the fulfilment of the enhanced cooperation mandate. Rather, it is a step along that path, acknowledging that, for now, the IGF and enhanced cooperation processes remain on a dual track (the Tunis Agenda suggests this anyway, but it was formalised as a condition of the IGF's renewal to satisfy developing country concerns that the IGF had not adequately addressed their concerns). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 18 13:01:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Jeremy I have been unable to figure out if this is about the Brazil's WTPF opinion proposal or it is about proposing a plan for IGF making recommendations. Can you please clarify. If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. parminder On Saturday 18 May 2013 10:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, > > This is to an extend an invitation to participants from the IGC and > IRP to join Best Bits participants in working on a draft proposal that > we intend to put to next week's IGF open consultation meeting. The > initiative for this proposal comes out of what happened at the World > Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this week, when Brazil's > proposal for a seventh opinion of the meeting, titled > "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder > framework for Internet Governance", failed mainly due to lack of time. > I won't say anything more about its substantive content here (though > that is a worthy subject for a separate thread), but you can download > the draft opinion at http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en or > read it online at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit. > > Almost all stakeholders at WTPF agreed that the opinion should be > considered further, but there is a question as to where this should > happen. Two options are that the opinion would be finalised by the > ITU's Council Working Group on Internet policy (CWG-Internet), which > is government-only and meets behind closed doors, or that it would go > to the IGF. In terms of our ability to have input into the text of > the opinion, the latter is obviously the better option. But various > developing countries objected to this, correctly, on the basis that > the IGF does not have the ability to conclude formal outputs. > > The draft proposal addresses this tension, by proposing a new > output-oriented main session that would enable the IGF to facilitate > the finalisation of the draft opinion, but without requiring changes > to the IGF that would enable it to negotiate formal recommendations. > I won't repeat everything in the proposal, but in short, the main > session would aim to produce a "multistakeholder opinion" that would > be non-binding, would be an output /at/ the IGF rather than /of/ the > IGF, and would be endorsed individually rather than being attributed > to the IGF as a whole. > > If (after reading it!) you would like to discuss the ideas in the > proposal in general, you can do so on this list and/or on the Best > Bits list, but if you would like to suggest concrete textual changes > to the proposal, you can do so on this pad, which currently contains a > first draft: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions > > The deadline for finalising the proposal is short because the IGF open > consultation commences on Tuesday. Therefore we are accepting input > on the text of the proposal only until 9am Monday, and shortly > thereafter it will be opened for endorsements via the Best Bits > website. The proposal will be presented at the open consultation > meeting on behalf of however many organisations or individuals have > endorsed it at that time. > > Note that this proposal is intended to be a fairly modest yet > important step forward towards tangible outputs, but the > "multistakeholder opinion" process isn't in itself put forward as the > fulfilment of the enhanced cooperation mandate. Rather, it is a step > along that path, acknowledging that, for now, the IGF and enhanced > cooperation processes remain on a dual track (the Tunis Agenda > suggests this anyway, but it was formalised as a condition of the > IGF's renewal to satisfy developing country concerns that the IGF had > not adequately addressed their concerns). > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat May 18 14:31:30 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 20:31:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited=85?= In-Reply-To: <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Saturday 18 May 2013 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > A interesting article from Seth Godin: > http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/05/its-thomas-midgeley-day.html > (Although I expect that idea that business can do rather bad things in the > name of innovation in not new to this mailing list...) > - - - Indeed, this topic is hardly new on this list. Still it is far from being stale or irrelevant. Business keeps producing disasters years after the origin has been identified and published. E.g. asbestos, oil, banks, agriculture, toxic waste, infected blood, drugs (e.g. Servier in France), and dozens more. What institution other than government could stop or limit these abuses ? Yes, governments also can produce disasters, specially when they are under business dominance. E.g. banks, IP lobbies, guns, food, defense, you name it. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 18 15:04:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 15:04:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 18 May 2013 09:10 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> A very good warning against giving big business a veto over public policy >>> decisions, which is what multistakeholderism essentially is, in the >>> manner >>> it is propagated in global IG today. >> >> This is not the case in any of the fora I have ever been to (remotely >> or in person) Would you care to back up your assertion with an >> example? > > > Yes, I have an example. You spoke on this elist about Google having a vote > at WCIT We don't vote in MS processes, so I'm sure I said it wasn't MSism because only governments and no other SHs (like Google) had = standing. .... By that logic of course the many other big businesses present > there would also have a vote no one should have a vote actually. , along with a plenty of google funded NGOs... > At WCIT things get decided by consensus ummm they actually *voted* for some value of the word *vote*. .... And this scenario has so many > votes for big business... but no business had a vote at the end of the day! > That of course constitutes a veto. of course, you are mistaken. how can someone have a veto if they are disenfranchised? > > An issue cannot pass the IGF MAG if big business doesnt agree to it - so it > cant even make the agenda without big business's consent..... Is there this kind of representation on the MAG, I had thought people participate in it in their individual capacities. > > (IT for Change had proposed a workshop on "Regulating global Internet > businesses - Role for global frameworks'. MAG did not find it an appropriate > topic for discussion at the IGF. probably becasue it is not. Funny, because, almost everyone I meet > outside the charmed IG circle thinks that this is 'the' thing that needs to > be done something about, at a global level.) in other words, effectively killing the thing we are trying to protect from governmental oversight. > > You can see how multistakeholderism is emerging as a safety value against > public policy controls over the free reign that Internet businesses will > like to have, and largely has today. > > All this is very problematic for the future of democracy... And we are > becoming either co- conspirators to this or silent spectators hopefully co-conspirators in disintermediating democracy from "representatives" who don't necessarily always "represent" their constituents. -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sat May 18 17:17:15 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 23:17:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On May 18, 2013 9:05 PM, "McTim" wrote: > We don't vote in MS processes, Who is the "we" here? And is this your opinion of what multi-stakeholder processes do and don't, or does this come from some kind of shared definition of the concept? > hopefully co-conspirators in disintermediating democracy from > "representatives" who don't necessarily always "represent" their > constituents. What does "disintermediating democracy" mean in practice, and who gets to decide whether a "representative" is actually representing his/her constituents or not? Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 19:17:40 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 19:17:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > On May 18, 2013 9:05 PM, "McTim" wrote: > >> We don't vote in MS processes, > > Who is the "we" here? Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. And is this your opinion of what multi-stakeholder > processes do and don't, or does this come from some kind of shared > definition of the concept? Comes from personal observation over many years. > >> hopefully co-conspirators in disintermediating democracy from >> "representatives" who don't necessarily always "represent" their >> constituents. > > What does "disintermediating democracy" mean in practice, and who gets to > decide whether a "representative" is actually representing his/her > constituents or not? It actually doesn't matter if a representative is doing his or her job in representing when individuals can participate in a more direct form of democracy. In that case, participative democracy is disintermediating. -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun May 19 01:15:49 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 07:15:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks for. A few more questions to clarify. On May 19, 2013 1:18 AM, "McTim" wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > > > Who is the "we" here? > > Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, > Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition? Thanks, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun May 19 02:34:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:34:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130519083452.3fdc0791@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On May 19, 2013 1:18 AM, "McTim" wrote: > > BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, > > Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. > > So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be > multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition? I would in addition insist on: * adherence to due process principles * civility principles to prevent suppression of viewpoints e.g. through the various variants of mobbing * recognition that human rights are of infinitely greater importance than any specific kinds of business interests (i.e. the consensus principle must not be used to block the implementation of human rights simply because some business models are incompatible) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 19 04:03:22 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:03:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy Thanks for your role in attempting to get some constructive activity going. I like your idea regarding IGF, more on that later. I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a well-intentioned attempt to bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about "each in their respective roles and responsibilities." Until national government representatives accept shared responsibility for policy making in the IG context, we do not have MS, we do not have anything new. Emerging from WTPF, there seems to have been a systematic effort to redefine "multistakeholderism" in conservative, state-centric terms. Moreover, ITU succeeded in co-opting IGF, by successfully developing these draft opinions. That is why I am interested in Jeremy's effort to push the IGF more toward a defined output. I will read his proposal more carefully however, before commenting further. At this stage I just want to warn anyone who might have a knee-jerk reaction against such an experiment in IGF to keep an open mind, because the competition from the ITU in this regard make may rigid opposition to this option self-defeating. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions Hello all, This is to an extend an invitation to participants from the IGC and IRP to join Best Bits participants in working on a draft proposal that we intend to put to next week's IGF open consultation meeting. The initiative for this proposal comes out of what happened at the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this week, when Brazil's proposal for a seventh opinion of the meeting, titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance", failed mainly due to lack of time. I won't say anything more about its substantive content here (though that is a worthy subject for a separate thread), but you can download the draft opinion at http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en or read it online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit. Almost all stakeholders at WTPF agreed that the opinion should be considered further, but there is a question as to where this should happen. Two options are that the opinion would be finalised by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet policy (CWG-Internet), which is government-only and meets behind closed doors, or that it would go to the IGF. In terms of our ability to have input into the text of the opinion, the latter is obviously the better option. But various developing countries objected to this, correctly, on the basis that the IGF does not have the ability to conclude formal outputs. The draft proposal addresses this tension, by proposing a new output-oriented main session that would enable the IGF to facilitate the finalisation of the draft opinion, but without requiring changes to the IGF that would enable it to negotiate formal recommendations. I won't repeat everything in the proposal, but in short, the main session would aim to produce a "multistakeholder opinion" that would be non-binding, would be an output at the IGF rather than of the IGF, and would be endorsed individually rather than being attributed to the IGF as a whole. If (after reading it!) you would like to discuss the ideas in the proposal in general, you can do so on this list and/or on the Best Bits list, but if you would like to suggest concrete textual changes to the proposal, you can do so on this pad, which currently contains a first draft: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions The deadline for finalising the proposal is short because the IGF open consultation commences on Tuesday. Therefore we are accepting input on the text of the proposal only until 9am Monday, and shortly thereafter it will be opened for endorsements via the Best Bits website. The proposal will be presented at the open consultation meeting on behalf of however many organisations or individuals have endorsed it at that time. Note that this proposal is intended to be a fairly modest yet important step forward towards tangible outputs, but the "multistakeholder opinion" process isn't in itself put forward as the fulfilment of the enhanced cooperation mandate. Rather, it is a step along that path, acknowledging that, for now, the IGF and enhanced cooperation processes remain on a dual track (the Tunis Agenda suggests this anyway, but it was formalised as a condition of the IGF's renewal to satisfy developing country concerns that the IGF had not adequately addressed their concerns). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 04:16:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 13:46:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to place different burdens on this above statement.. You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of all, not able to understand what is it about ... I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help. parminder > Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 19 04:41:22 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:41:22 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2407725@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Have had a chance to review Jeremy's proposal here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions I am in complete support of its intentions, and support 98% of its proposed procedure. My only cavil regarding the proposal involves the use of the Brazilian proposal as the starting point of the deliberations, which I believe may (by serving as the default) bias the proceedings towards a "states are pre-eminent" position. Would it be possible to allow others to submit alternate proposals that would be considered with equal status? > -----Original Message----- > From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp- > bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy > Malcolm > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:48 AM > To: parminder > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal > for IGF multistakeholder opinions > > On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > > > If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you > find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over > so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent > and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different > players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very > significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer > to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian > proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do > not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the > IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me > doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's > recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in > the same way but people still have different views about it. And > something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be > as one of the worst candidates. > However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of > the Brazilian proposal. > > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is > relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to > work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC > and the United States indicated that they would probably support it > although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite > close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all > stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the > IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though > this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I > can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive > ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi- > stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the > wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an > opportunity to do that. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t > NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 05:32:01 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:32:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> Hi Jeremy On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > I have a different understanding of what we saw go down at WTPF. I don't think we got close to agreement on it at all, and that the actors mentioned said they'd want line by line amendments not in order to continue discussion of this particular text, but rather to avoid it. Moreover, while I understand your institutional and substantive interests in pushing this, there may be some constraints that merit consideration. For example, First, the WTPF was convened pursuant to a Plenipotentiary decision and may be discussed at the 11-21 June Council meeting. The WTPF Chairman's Report includes the Brazil-based discussion as agreed and notes twice the recommendation of WG 3's chair that the discussion be taken up in the CWG on Internet Policy. In his closing statement, Toure called for the CWG to be "opened up" on the same basis as the WTPF as Sweden proposed last year so the issues could be discussed in a manner ITU calls multistakeholder. Meanwhile, as was noted in the meeting, there are no mechanisms for the ITU to formally forward to another entity a (failed) proposal of one of its bodies for consideration. So while governments who wanted to set aside the proposal suggested we should all "talk about the issues" at IGF, the ITU probably will still go forward with its own process in some manner. In which context, many countries (and not necessarily just developing countries) might object to the idea of the IGF somehow formally taking up an internal ITU text, especially one still under discussion. Bottom line, I can see some governments saying sure let's chit chat about the broad topic at an IGF main session, but do you really think they'd agree to a formal debate and adoption process regarding an ITU-originated document? Second, the original Brazilian proposal was pretty incendiary because it came from Anatel, which has a stake in promoting the ITU's role in Internet and everything else. Other parts of the Brazilian government we deal with in IGF, ICANN etc. have somewhat different orientations, and it seemed in Geneva that this was a slightly awkward matter. I spoke with the delegation Wednesday evening about cutting out the non-starter stuff, acknowledging the role of other bodies like the RIRs in facilitating participation, and just saying ITU should play its role alongside others, and it was clear they and they wanted a way out and were open to such an approach. I believe they had pretty much the same conversation with many others. Next morning they came back with a text that says, well, ITU should play a role alongside others, and even this couldn't go forward. So while Brazil undoubtedly remains keenly interested in the broad topic being discussed further in multiple settings, are we sure it'd consider this particular late night text to be the vehicle it wants to carry the load? They and other like minded governments might like to recalibrate and work out a formulation in consultation with other partners. Brazil's been one of CS' best partners and supporters, so at a minimum I'd first seek dialogue with them to see what they're thinking could be the way forward, rather than presume to just unilaterally propose an IGF process about their failed Opinion. Third, I don't see how the MAG could possibly agree by COB Thursday to restructure the IGF process so as to enable the process you seek. We already have identified candidate main session topics at the February meeting in Paris; the new one you're suggesting would involve substantial restructuring of the IGF's agenda and modalities that no governments or other actors have discussed internally, much less taken a position on; the MAG was just renewed and has to reboot with new members; and probably a majority of MAG members are spending today trying to burn through and grade 419 pages of workshop proposals by tomorrow so we can decide on them Wednesday-Thursday. The MAG will be rather preoccupied, to put it mildly. Again, I understand your interest in seeing the IGF reformed to do this sort of thing, and in the broad topic addressed by the Brazilian proposal, but all in all it's not clear trying to make this happen is going to be a good use of peoples' time. Restructuring the IGF and enhancing the role of ITU and governments in IG are both big topics that would probably require longer processes of consideration and development than is possible for the Bali program. Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 19 06:00:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:00:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 23:17:15 on Sat, 18 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes >What does "disintermediating democracy" mean in practice, Stripping away the intermediaries - in this case the representatives. I'm not sure this happens very often in practice. >and who gets to decide whether a "representative" is actually >representing his/her constituents or not? Representatives are usually appointed or voted, and it's possible in some cases to examine the election/appointment process if it's transparent enough [for example, what's the length of tenure, were they the only candidate etc] and also look at the quality of the reporting back to their constituency, to get a feel for how much the representative is in touch with their constituency. Ultimately, there might even be overt signs from the constituency that they feel their representative is doing an especially good, or bad, job. If you understand the constituency yourself, it's sometimes possible to say whether the messages the representative is handing out are "in tune" with that constituency. For example, a representative of the Internet Technical Community going round saying that transition to IPv6 should be stopped because there are, after all, enough IPv4 addresses for everyone, might be visibly "off piste" as they say. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 06:02:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:02:43 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 19/05/2013, at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a well-intentioned attempt to bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about “each in their respective roles and responsibilities.” Yes, that is definitely going to be one of the major sticking points, and not just for you. Interestingly though, it is not a red line for everybody. WTPF opinion 5 contains the same reference, so it was part of the compromise that the civil society representatives at the IEG were willing to accept. I don't like the language either, but on the other hand I don't see it as a step backward, since it was part of the agreed language at WSIS. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 19 06:06:26 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:06:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 07:15:49 on Sun, 19 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes >> Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, >> Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. > >So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be >multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition? It is certainly not sufficient. I can think of BUTOC processes which have a very narrow range of stakeholders involved. Sometimes these process will protest that other stakeholders are welcome, should they choose to become involved; but in their absence I don't think the process can *be* multistakeholder. Similarly, a multi-stakeholder process can also be top-down; if for example each stakeholder group votes-in representatives to a committee[1] of some kind, who then go on to take all the decisions without any further consultation with their constituencies. [1] Or Board, Council, Bureau etc. Many words for much the same thing. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 06:15:10 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:15:10 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2407725@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2407725@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0D9D3EFE-6EF3-4BF3-A026-A1BDBAD30A10@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2013, at 4:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Have had a chance to review Jeremy's proposal here: > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions > > I am in complete support of its intentions, and support 98% of its proposed procedure. My only cavil regarding the proposal involves the use of the Brazilian proposal as the starting point of the deliberations, which I believe may (by serving as the default) bias the proceedings towards a "states are pre-eminent" position. Would it be possible to allow others to submit alternate proposals that would be considered with equal status? A good suggestion in principle, but as a practical matter, it helps immensely to have a solid starting point that can be the basis for critique. With multiple separate documents, there is less of a clear path forward and likely to be too little time to deal with them adequately. Having said that, in my view without explicitly calling for alternative documents, there is nothing in the proposal that would prevent a person who comments on the text from putting a separate document forward (say, by way of a link), which would then have to be reflected in the background paper. If that doesn't address your point adequately, maybe you could suggest an amendment to the proposal that would. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 19 06:15:51 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 12:15:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, here is another perspective: The problem for some governments is that they want to have "one single place/space" where they can discuss and decide (with other governments) upon Internet Governance issues. There are a lot of governments which do not like neither the GAC (where they have only ad advisory capacity) nor the IGF (where they are one stakeholder among others without any decision making capacity). They mistrust the other I*organisdations as IETF, IAB, IEEE. W3C, RIRS because as governments they have only little to contribute. For them the only remaining option is the UN General Assembly (via the UNCSTD) and the ITU (via the CWG). The Russian delegate made this rather clear in the final WTPF Plenary when he called for "one single body" be pointing to the ITU Council WG on Inernet related Public Policy Issues. This will not work. It is simply impossible to "centralize" all public policy related Internet issues in one body. Different bodies will take partial elements into their agendas but they are dependent of (and have to collaborate with) other governmental and intergovernmental bodies (which leads to enhanced cooperation in a process of "enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration/EC³). You need two for a tango and a lot of governments do not want to discuss IG related issues within the ITU context. And as a number of governments has said during the WTPF they they can not make decisions within the ITU without consulting at home private sector and civil society. This does not mean that the ITU has no role top play anymore but a subatnatial number of governments would support ITU more if it would - within its limited mandate - broaden its engagement in building infrastructure enabling more access or/and become more engaged in capacity building via training and education both of governmental experts and the broader public to enable more qualified participation (in particular from developing coubntries) in Internet PDPs. In my eyes the WTPF made rather clear that the ITU has only little to do (and to say) if it comes to Internet POLICY development. It remains to be seen what the ITU Council in June 2013 will decide, what the ITU will do with the WSIS 10+ process and how they move towards Busan 2014. Will they continue and expand 101, 102 and 133 or will they moving forward by identifying what their (reduced but workable) core Internet policy business will be between 2014 and 2018? What is needed is another more general discussion to clarifiy who should do what in the IG ecosystem and how the various governmental- and non-governmental actors work together and share duties and responsibilties. Next to the IGF, the UNCSTD WGEC could become such a space where more clarification can be achieved. One of the first task the WGEC should carry out is a "Mapping of the Internet Governance Eco-System". Together with the "Compendium on Internet Governance Principles", which is now under discussion in the MAG WG IGP, both documents could help to move the whole discussion forward and to identify gaps and "to do lists". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: So 19.05.2013 10:16 An: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Betreff: Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to place different burdens on this above statement.. You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of all, not able to understand what is it about ... I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help. parminder > Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 06:20:50 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 19:20:50 +0900 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy Careful with words please. There were no "civil society representatives at the IEG". Some good people attended and may have had some well considered opinions. But they were (are?) no one's representatives. Adam On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not > allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a > well-intentioned attempt to bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. > In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to > the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent > policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at > their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about “each in > their respective roles and responsibilities.” > > > Yes, that is definitely going to be one of the major sticking points, and > not just for you. Interestingly though, it is not a red line for everybody. > WTPF opinion 5 contains the same reference, so it was part of the compromise > that the civil society representatives at the IEG were willing to accept. I > don't like the language either, but on the other hand I don't see it as a > step backward, since it was part of the agreed language at WSIS. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 19 06:26:07 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 07:26:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> ... and this is supposing we have absolutely clarified the meaning of bottoms-up... errr... bottom-up (since we are talking about BUTOC...), transparent, open and consensus. --c.a. On 05/19/2013 02:15 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Thanks for. A few more questions to clarify. > > On May 19, 2013 1:18 AM, "McTim" wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrea Glorioso >> wrote: >>> >>> Who is the "we" here? >> >> Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, >> Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. > > So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be > multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition? > > Thanks, > > Andrea > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun May 19 06:27:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:57:50 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <10CA5229-9DF2-4792-9A5F-C5D4D2D59F82@hserus.net> If the caucus wants to do a line by line reading, we might sign on with express reservations about the wording in question. --srs (iPad) On 19-May-2013, at 15:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a well-intentioned attempt to bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about “each in their respective roles and responsibilities.” > > Yes, that is definitely going to be one of the major sticking points, and not just for you. Interestingly though, it is not a red line for everybody. WTPF opinion 5 contains the same reference, so it was part of the compromise that the civil society representatives at the IEG were willing to accept. I don't like the language either, but on the other hand I don't see it as a step backward, since it was part of the agreed language at WSIS. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun May 19 06:31:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 16:01:55 +0530 Subject: AW: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> This was actually much better at ITU about seven or eight years back - before and possibly shortly after Athens. The level of engagement and capacity building focus seems to have dialed itself down dramatically [for reasons that might or might not correlate with, shall we say, a change in management there] If the ITU were to turn its talents, its capacity to hire external experts and its reach in every economy in the world, to a much more active role in capacity building and engagment, instead of working to gain control .. that unfortunately more and more appears to be a pipe dream :( --srs (iPad) On 19-May-2013, at 15:45, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > society. This does not mean that the ITU has no role top play anymore but a subatnatial number of governments would support ITU more if it would - within its limited mandate - broaden its engagement in building infrastructure enabling more access or/and become more engaged in capacity building via training and education both of governmental experts and the broader public to enable more qualified participation (in particular from developing coubntries) in Internet PDPs. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 06:42:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:42:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On 19/05/2013, at 5:32 PM, William Drake wrote: > First, the WTPF was convened pursuant to a Plenipotentiary decision and may be discussed at the 11-21 June Council meeting. The WTPF Chairman's Report includes the Brazil-based discussion as agreed and notes twice the recommendation of WG 3's chair that the discussion be taken up in the CWG on Internet Policy. In his closing statement, Toure called for the CWG to be "opened up" on the same basis as the WTPF as Sweden proposed last year so the issues could be discussed in a manner ITU calls multistakeholder. But because we can't guarantee that this will actually happen, this is a backup plan. > Meanwhile, as was noted in the meeting, there are no mechanisms for the ITU to formally forward to another entity a (failed) proposal of one of its bodies for consideration. But equally, nothing to stop another such entity from taking it up of their own volition. > So while governments who wanted to set aside the proposal suggested we should all "talk about the issues" at IGF, the ITU probably will still go forward with its own process in some manner. In which context, many countries (and not necessarily just developing countries) might object to the idea of the IGF somehow formally taking up an internal ITU text, especially one still under discussion. They'll have the opportunity to object next week, so let's hear what they have to say. :-) > Bottom line, I can see some governments saying sure let's chit chat about the broad topic at an IGF main session, but do you really think they'd agree to a formal debate and adoption process regarding an ITU-originated document? Let's find out. > Brazil's been one of CS' best partners and supporters, so at a minimum I'd first seek dialogue with them to see what they're thinking could be the way forward, rather than presume to just unilaterally propose an IGF process about their failed Opinion. Yes that's true, and I'm working on that in parallel. I've been in dialogue with Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle who is Brazil's rep on the CSTD Working Group and will ask Joana (who as you know was at the WTPF) to address the issue with her contacts. > Third, I don't see how the MAG could possibly agree by COB Thursday to restructure the IGF process so as to enable the process you seek. There's no restructuring as such, it's just an extra main session, but yes it would disrupt the plans made in February. On the other hand there is still plenty of time to make changes before October, and major changes have been made on shorter notice before. Remember the special host country session in Sharm? > Again, I understand your interest in seeing the IGF reformed to do this sort of thing, and in the broad topic addressed by the Brazilian proposal, but all in all it's not clear trying to make this happen is going to be a good use of peoples' time. Restructuring the IGF and enhancing the role of ITU and governments in IG are both big topics that would probably require longer processes of consideration and development than is possible for the Bali program. Thanks for the note of realism! It could be argued, conversely, that the MAG is the servant of the IGF community, so if there is strong enough support for it, it's the MAG's job to make it happen. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 06:53:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:53:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2013, at 4:16 PM, parminder wrote: > To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. If we get the transcript then it will be easier to take the intention straight from the horse's mouth, but I would summarise the first part, which is the most operational part, as calling on the ITU to provide capacity building for developing country governments to more effectively participate in multistakeholder Internet governance institutions including IGF, ICANN, IETF, W3C, etc, in their own right (ie. not fronted by the ITU; I don't think there's any suggestion of that). The second part is not really operational, but is an expression of support for the fact that Internet governance takes place in a networked manner across a number of multistakeholder institutions, and that states are encouraged to participate in those, in addition to their discussion of relevant issues at the ITU and in the WSIS+10 process. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 19 07:26:25 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 16:26:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisite?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d=85?= In-Reply-To: <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Big business lobbying itself is based on some kind of principles on which their lobbyists gather and advocate their standpoint in various political and global settings. These principles bring the businesses together and they can all stand behind one organization and make a statement to preserve their continued positions as we've experienced in the MAG and other policy spaces. AS I mention spaces, spaces are designed and determined according to interests that may be diverse but may have an agreement in principle to sustain a certain position and we may see that position retaining itself for years. When we say Internet Giants, we already know that they have opened and maintain the doors for market dominance in their business area. With the kind of money they can put into backing lobbyists, that is hard to counter especially when they can draw in large numbers on some kind of a mutually agreeable principle and then back it across a multiplicity of forums at both regional and global levels. I find two things in the article, the rational sense and the issue of well being and sustainable futures. The rational sense would incline towards profit seeking whereas the issue of well being of society and countering the negative externalities would always remain a challenge as the lobbyists may tend to forget that the future has their generations involved as well. A feeling I can derive from this thread is that multistakeholderism is the struggle for inclusive structures of governance and expression of interests entailing all groups in this gathering as struggling to maintain the interests of their groups or larger communities and entities they represent or serve. The outcome whether good or bad is for the future to determine but the CS groups do agree in general to certain principles, human rights and freedom of expression being one of them but in the notions of their own understanding and beliefs however, in preparatory processes like the MAG, the groups that are more organized and prepared to stand their ground get their way more than others and we see businesses confronting successfully. The institutionalization of multistakeholderism is still yet an evolving process and we will continue to see different faces of it. Best Fouad On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > ... and this is supposing we have absolutely clarified the meaning of > bottoms-up... errr... bottom-up (since we are talking about BUTOC...), > transparent, open and consensus. > > --c.a. > > > On 05/19/2013 02:15 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> Thanks for. A few more questions to clarify. >> >> On May 19, 2013 1:18 AM, "McTim" wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrea Glorioso >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Who is the "we" here? >>> >>> >>> Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent, >>> Open, Consensus) based processes of IG. >> >> >> So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be >> multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrea >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 19 07:56:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:56:03 -0300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2407725@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2407725@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5198BDD3.2020104@cafonso.ca> One phrase of Jeremy's description of the WTPF discussions is curious: "There is a CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation with multi-stakeholder participation, which could consider the issues raised in the opinion, but some member states objected that they are not participants in that Working Group." What? This sounds like States (or anyone else) would block discussions in the WGEC because they are not there... states already trying to remote-control the WGEC? As to the proposal itself, I agree with MM. --c.a. On 05/19/2013 05:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Have had a chance to review Jeremy's proposal here: > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions > > I am in complete support of its intentions, and support 98% of its proposed procedure. My only cavil regarding the proposal involves the use of the Brazilian proposal as the starting point of the deliberations, which I believe may (by serving as the default) bias the proceedings towards a "states are pre-eminent" position. Would it be possible to allow others to submit alternate proposals that would be considered with equal status? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp- >> bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy >> Malcolm >> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:48 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal >> for IGF multistakeholder opinions >> >> On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you >> find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over >> so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent >> and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different >> players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very >> significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer >> to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian >> proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do >> not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the >> IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me >> doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's >> recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in >> the same way but people still have different views about it. And >> something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be >> as one of the worst candidates. >> However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of >> the Brazilian proposal. >> >> >> I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is >> relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to >> work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC >> and the United States indicated that they would probably support it >> although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite >> close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all >> stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the >> IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though >> this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I >> can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive >> ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi- >> stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the >> wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an >> opportunity to do that. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t >> NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi- >> bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 19 08:18:24 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva meeting. http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an another high level event in 2015. The 2015 event has to be decided by the next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and it has the potential to become a policy body. The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group and various WGs and Caucuses. So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of the three stakeholder groups. My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for both the 2014 and 2015 events. The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun May 19 08:29:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:29:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20130519142956.28f723de@quill.bollow.ch> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with > the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment > of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and > 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This > statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and > reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 +1 Who volunteers to lead the drafting process for such a statement? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 09:27:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:57:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5198D342.9000409@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 May 2013 04:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 4:16 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such >> technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the >> original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing >> that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even >> fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not >> what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of >> multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental >> participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. > > If we get the transcript then it will be easier to take the intention > straight from the horse's mouth, but I would summarise the first part, > which is the most operational part, as calling on the ITU to provide > capacity building for developing country governments to more > effectively participate in multistakeholder Internet governance > institutions including IGF, ICANN, IETF, W3C, etc, If this indeed is the operational part of the statement, what is there to get so excited about it. What is of special significance here, I still fail to understand. On the other hand, I still think the Brazilian statement was confusing and unclear in its intent from the start, and has become even more confusing in being edited down in an effort to negotiate its passage through WTPF... > in their own right (ie. not fronted by the ITU; I don't think there's > any suggestion of that). The second part is not really operational, > but is an expression of support for the fact that Internet governance > takes place in a networked manner across a number of multistakeholder > institutions, and that states are encouraged to participate in those, > in addition to their discussion of relevant issues at the ITU and in > the WSIS+10 process. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 09:34:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 19:04:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] WG on EC Message-ID: <5198D4FF.2000301@itforchange.net> The first meeting of WG on enhanced cooperation will be held on on 30th and 31st May. The task identified for this first meeting is to " 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". While no formal inputs for this 'task' are being invited at this stage, if the IGC or other other CS groups, come up with any formulations, these can be communicated by CS members of the WG on EC to the meeting.... 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun May 19 10:59:44 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 16:59:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ Message-ID: <1506840539.12334.1368975584046.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p20> Dear Wolfgang and all Whereas I agree with Wolfgang's opinion and suggestions that call out the CS for a thorough reflection upon the future of the WSIS process ("WSIS ++") I'd like to make some short comments on the past Geneva week (WSIS Forum 2013), while proposing that the debate suggested by Wolfgang should be carried out on the wsis-cs list (to be revitalized !) ; possibly, goverance list should be in copy e.g. for the starting phase. - Despite its obvious presence in the WSIS corridosrs and rooms, CS is completely absent from the topics discussed during the WSIS Fora. Instead of that only some selected CS organisations or members are expressing their own views on the issues dealt with during the "Panels"and thematic sessions. Hence, they are less "audible" and the stakeholder role of CS is minimized if not ignored. There was not a single meeting nor a call for such an event by the CONGO or by another representative org (e.g. APC).- Some sponsors of the 2013 Forum and "strategic partners" (sic) are at least questionable about their democratic foundation : Oman, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaidjan, Kazakhstan, Kuweit, Saudi Arabia, ....- As far as orientation for the future of WSIS activities and focus, no comment was made by the members of this (governance) list on the respective very divergent positions of the ITU SG leading the process and Adama Samassekou both in priorities and in policy aspects, e.g. Adama's sentence of PPPs and their replacement by MSP (Multistakeholder Partnership) where CS is playing its full role. Other comments will come later Best regards Jean-Louis FullsackCESIR > Message du 19/05/13 14:18thereofof the CS > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > Copie à : "Andrea Glorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > Objet : [governance] WSIS 10+ > > Hi everybody, > > I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva meeting. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html > > The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an another high level event in 2015. The 2015 event has to be decided by the next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. > > Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and it has the potential to become a policy body. > > The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group and various WGs and Caucuses. > > So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of the three stakeholder groups. > > My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for both the 2014 and 2015 events. > > The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. > > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Sun May 19 11:08:58 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 17:08:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, You may recall that some months ago I mentioned the disconnect between the two 2015 UN reviews: WSIS and the MDGs - and that the disconnect was especially significant because the UN agencies were coordinating but all other stakeholders weren't. Behind the scenes I've been talking about this with governments here in Geneva and companies and NGOs too, and there's real interest in seeing how the next 10 years of WSIS can be an opportunity for the Internet community (and ICTs generally) to be a part of the delivery of the SDGs (the likely name of the next 10 years of the MDGs is the Sustainable Development Goals). Debates about governance is all very well - but actually making a difference in the lives of people is preferable for most, I suspect, over political to-ing and fro-ing. While a declaration of the kind you mention would IMHO be useful, declarations are just that - statements. There's no substitute for actual engagement: 1) Get connected to the existing network of NGOs active in MDG followup. You can find the homepage of those NGOs here. Needless to say, the community of NGOs working on the MDGs greatly dwarfs that working on Internet policy - but it seems to me that's an opportunity for cross-fertilization: each group would be stronger if some of the others joined it. 2) The meetings and documents of UNGIS should be open, not closed. If interagency cooperation between the two review processes remains closed, civil society is likely to be the biggest loser. Advocating for this is something I suspect all stakeholder groups would support. The MDGs are a head-of-state-level priority. WSIS isn't. The best opportunity to make the next 10 years of WSIS a bigger priority is to ensure it is a part of the next 10 years of the MDGs. On 19 May 2013, at 14:18, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva meeting. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html > > The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an another high level event in 2015. The 2015 event has to be decided by the next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. > > Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and it has the potential to become a policy body. > > The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group and various WGs and Caucuses. > > So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of the three stakeholder groups. > > My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for both the 2014 and 2015 events. > > The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. > > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun May 19 11:42:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 17:42:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Selection process; request for advice Message-ID: <20130519174232.3c38850f@quill.bollow.ch> [IGC Coordinator hat on] Dear all Following up from Sala's recent posting... Five voting NomCom members plus two reserves will be randomly selected from the pool of volunteers. In addition, the NomCom needs a non-voting chairperson. The charter says about this: “A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously.” Consequently, we hereby invite the Internet Governance Caucus membership to give advice on who would be a good chairperson for the NomCom. Please give your advice by Thursday May 23. The remainder of this message announces the details of the random selection process that will be used, so that it will be possible to verify afterwards that this process was not manipulated. The selection will be carried out by means of the reference program code "Publicly Verifiable Random Selection" from RFC 3797 [1], as downloaded from [2]. The file pvrs-0.3.tgz has SHA-1 hash [3] bf68909204174dbb3a9b76b3fc6392b6576fb5f1. The random seed will consist of the seven numbers of the Wednesday May 22 Lotto draw of the UK National Lottery [4] (the six "ball numbers" and the number of the "bonus ball", entered together). [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3797.txt [2] http://www.malcolm.id.au/files/software/unix/pvrs/pvrs-0.3.tgz [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1 [4] https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/drawHistory.do For the sake of completeness, here is again the numbered list of NomCom volunteers (this had been announced before.) 1) Chaitanya Dhareshwar 2) Jeremy Malcolm 3) José Félix Arias Ynche 4) Kerry Brown 5) Avri Doria 6) Sarah Kiden 7) Shaila Mistry 8) Deirdre Williams 9) José Francisco Callo Romero 10) Carlos Vera Quintana 11) Izumi Aizu 12) Adam Peake 13) Angela Daly 14) Mwendwa Kivuva 15) Keith Davidson 16) Carlos Watson 17) Rudi Vansnick 18) Vincent Solomon 19) Michael Gurstein 20) Parminder Jeet Singh 21) Wilson Abigaba 22) Thomas Lowenhaupt 23) Asif Kabani 24) Ginger Paque 25) Marilia Maciel 26) Julian Casasbuenas G. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 19 11:51:10 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 17:51:10 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ References: <1506840539.12334.1368975584046.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p20> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jean Louis, thanks for your quick reply and first comments. I agree fully that the WSIS++ has to go far beyond the areas where the IGC is active. I think it is a great idea to revitalize the wsis-cs list. I have no idea whether this list is still alive. In case not, we have to open a new list. I also fully agree that in the WSIS 10+ process, as it is pushed forward at the moment by the "triumvirat" ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, civil society is totally sidelined and pushed back to a pre-Geneva situation were some handpicked CS individuals or representatives were invited to make a statement just to give the illusion that all stakeholders are included. I was also shocked to hear that Adama went back to a "public-private partnership" model! Where is his memory? This is unacceptable. But it needs an organized CS. We learned some lessons on the road to Tunis, but we have to push now the re-start button. Where is CONGO? Do we have somebody like Renate Bloem who could do this both in NY and Geneva as a recognized platform which can link hundredes of NGOs and CS to the process? Will (and can) APC play this role? Somebody else? This needs resources. My idea for the moment - after this week in Geneva - was that the IGC kick-starts the process and sends a statement to the UNCSTD meeting early June 2013 just to flag that we have here a problem and the UN (UNCSTD, ECOSOC, UNGA) has to fix it. And again, it is not enough to call for a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we deliver content, we deliver substance to the process and we have our own set of values and principles. That is the reason why I gave the link to the CS WSIS Declaration from 2003. And again, it goes beyond Internet Governance, although the Internet and its governance is linked now much deeper to all the various issues raised by the WSIS Action Lines as ten years ago. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jean-Louis FULLSACK Gesendet: So 19.05.2013 16:59 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; FouadBajwa; CarlosA.Afonso Cc: AndreaGlorioso; McTim; Parminder Betreff: re: [governance] WSIS 10+ Dear Wolfgang and all Whereas I agree with Wolfgang's opinion and suggestions that call out the CS for a thorough reflection upon the future of the WSIS process ("WSIS ++") I'd like to make some short comments on the past Geneva week (WSIS Forum 2013), while proposing that the debate suggested by Wolfgang should be carried out on the wsis-cs list (to be revitalized !) ; possibly, goverance list should be in copy e.g. for the starting phase. - Despite its obvious presence in the WSIS corridosrs and rooms, CS is completely absent from the topics discussed during the WSIS Fora. Instead of that only some selected CS organisations or members are expressing their own views on the issues dealt with during the "Panels"and thematic sessions. Hence, they are less "audible" and the stakeholder role of CS is minimized if not ignored. There was not a single meeting nor a call for such an event by the CONGO or by another representative org (e.g. APC). - Some sponsors of the 2013 Forum and "strategic partners" (sic) are at least questionable about their democratic foundation : Oman, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaidjan, Kazakhstan, Kuweit, Saudi Arabia, .... - As far as orientation for the future of WSIS activities and focus, no comment was made by the members of this (governance) list on the respective very divergent positions of the ITU SG leading the process and Adama Samassekou both in priorities and in policy aspects, e.g. Adama's sentence of PPPs and their replacement by MSP (Multistakeholder Partnership) where CS is playing its full role. Other comments will come later Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CESIR > Message du 19/05/13 14:18thereofof the CS > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > Copie à : "Andrea Glorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > Objet : [governance] WSIS 10+ > > Hi everybody, > > I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva meeting. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html > > The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an another high level event in 2015.. The 2015 event has to be decided by the next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. > > Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and it has the potential to become a policy body. > > The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group and various WGs and Caucuses. > > So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of the three stakeholder groups. > > My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for both the 2014 and 2015 events. > > The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. > > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun May 19 19:01:42 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 01:01:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1506840539.12334.1368975584046.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p20> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <564759640.23773.1369004502785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m09> Dear Wolfgang just to prevent a misunderstanding : I clearly heard (Wednesday morning WSIS + 10 Session, room Popov) Adama sentence (i.e. condemn) the PPP and asking for replacing it by a "PMA" ("Partenariat Multi-Acteurs") since his discourse was in french. He further motivated his proposal saying that this fundamental change responds to the need to have CS playing its necessary role. I also exchanged privately with him and I confirm this statement. Consequently, it was somehow strange to hear the comment of his eminent malian brother Hamadoun Toure, pointing out that the acronym PMA is already used (in french it means Least Developed Country, LDC) and therefore another "thing" should be found. I subscribe to all your comments and views about the due CS implication in the future of WSIS and do hope that somebody of CONGO will succeed in revitalizing the CS eminent role in the near future. Alles Gute Jean-Louis > Message du 19/05/13 17:53 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "FouadBajwa" , "CarlosA.Afonso" > Copie à : "AndreaGlorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > Objet : AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ > > Jean Louis, > > thanks for your quick reply and first comments. > > I agree fully that the WSIS++ has to go far beyond the areas where the IGC is active. I think it is a great idea to revitalize the wsis-cs list. I have no idea whether this list is still alive. In case not, we have to open a new list. > > I also fully agree that in the WSIS 10+ process, as it is pushed forward at the moment by the "triumvirat" ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, civil society is totally sidelined and pushed back to a pre-Geneva situation were some handpicked CS individuals or representatives were invited to make a statement just to give the illusion that all stakeholders are included. I was also shocked to hear that Adama went back to a "public-private partnership" model! Where is his memory? > > This is unacceptable. But it needs an organized CS. We learned some lessons on the road to Tunis, but we have to push now the re-start button. > > Where is CONGO? Do we have somebody like Renate Bloem who could do this both in NY and Geneva as a recognized platform which can link hundredes of NGOs and CS to the process? Will (and can) APC play this role? Somebody else? This needs resources. > > My idea for the moment - after this week in Geneva - was that the IGC kick-starts the process and sends a statement to the UNCSTD meeting early June 2013 just to flag that we have here a problem and the UN (UNCSTD, ECOSOC, UNGA) has to fix it. > > And again, it is not enough to call for a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we deliver content, we deliver substance to the process and we have our own set of values and principles. That is the reason why I gave the link to the CS WSIS Declaration from 2003. And again, it goes beyond Internet Governance, although the Internet and its governance is linked now much deeper to all the various issues raised by the WSIS Action Lines as ten years ago. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Gesendet: So 19.05.2013 16:59 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; FouadBajwa; CarlosA.Afonso > Cc: AndreaGlorioso; McTim; Parminder > Betreff: re: [governance] WSIS 10+ > > > > > > Dear Wolfgang and all > > > > Whereas I agree with Wolfgang's opinion and suggestions that call out the CS for a thorough reflection upon the future of the WSIS process ("WSIS ++") I'd like to make some short comments on the past Geneva week (WSIS Forum 2013), while proposing that the debate suggested by Wolfgang should be carried out on the wsis-cs list (to be revitalized !) ; possibly, goverance list should be in copy e.g. for the starting phase. > > > > - Despite its obvious presence in the WSIS corridosrs and rooms, CS is completely absent from the topics discussed during the WSIS Fora. Instead of that only some selected CS organisations or members are expressing their own views on the issues dealt with during the "Panels"and thematic sessions. Hence, they are less "audible" and the stakeholder role of CS is minimized if not ignored. There was not a single meeting nor a call for such an event by the CONGO or by another representative org (e.g. APC). > > - Some sponsors of the 2013 Forum and "strategic partners" (sic) are at least questionable about their democratic foundation : Oman, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaidjan, Kazakhstan, Kuweit, Saudi Arabia, .... > > - As far as orientation for the future of WSIS activities and focus, no comment was made by the members of this (governance) list on the respective very divergent positions of the ITU SG leading the process and Adama Samassekou both in priorities and in policy aspects, e.g. Adama's sentence of PPPs and their replacement by MSP (Multistakeholder Partnership) where CS is playing its full role. > > > > Other comments will come later > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > CESIR > > > Message du 19/05/13 14:18thereofof the CS > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Fouad Bajwa" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > Copie à : "Andrea Glorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > > Objet : [governance] WSIS 10+ > > > > Hi everybody, > > > > I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva meeting. > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html > > > > The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an another high level event in 2015.. The 2015 event has to be decided by the next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. > > > > Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and it has the potential to become a policy body. > > > > The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group and various WGs and Caucuses. > > > > So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of the three stakeholder groups. > > > > My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for both the 2014 and 2015 events. > > > > The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. > > > > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in 2013++. > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 19 19:11:16 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:11:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear All, These are excellent calls for action by Wolfgang and the IGC should work on delivering content. I am happy to draft the Statement and would like to ask people to send their views. We need to generate substantive content in this regard. If there are others who are willing to work jointly on preparing a statement, please let us know. I would suggest using this thread to share views on the subject which can be consolidated into submissions and ultimately to the IGC for comments and peer review. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I want to kick-start a discussion how to prepare for the next phase in the > WSIS 10+ process, as it was discussed at length during the recent Geneva > meeting. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html > > The overall plan - pushed forward by the ITU - is to have a high level > (ministerial) meeting in April 2014 in Sharm el Sheikh followed by an > another high level event in 2015. The 2015 event has to be decided by the > next UN General Assembly in December 2013. One recommendation from Geneva > was to link the WSIS 10+ process in a not yet specified way to the UN > Milleniums Development Goals Summit which will take place also in 2015. > Janis Karklins from UNESCO proposed to do the WSIS 10+ event (WSIS III?) > before the Millenium Summit to clear how ICT can help to achieve MDGs. > > Furthermore a discussion has started for the "Beyond 2015 strategy" for > the further development of the information society, something like WSIS++. > The first push came from UNGIS, a platform of now about 30 > intergovernmental organsations. UNGIS presents itself as a more technical > (internal) UN body which just facilitates information exchange. However in > its joint statement it has already framed how 2015+ should be discussed and > it has the potential to become a policy body. > > The process ahaed of us raises numerous issues, both with regard to > substance as well as to procedures. And CS should start to form as quick as > possible a similar structure which guided CS through the two phases of WSIS > between 2002 and 2005 with a Plenary, a Bureau, a Content & Themes Group > and various WGs and Caucuses. > > So far the process is driven mainly by the UN organisations with ITU, UNDP > and UNESCO in the drivers sead. They "consult" with stakeholders but this > consultations does not really look like a full inclusion on equal footing. > There is on the one hand a general commitment for multistakeholderism on > all levels, on the other hand there are no procedures in place how the MS > should be operationalized in the preparation of the events in 2014 and 2015 > and in draftting the 2015+ strategy. UNGIS sits in closed meetings. The > ministerial meetings are not open to the public. There is no - as we had in > WSIS I & II - Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) with interacting buereaus of > the three stakeholder groups. > > My expecation is that the UNCSTD will discuss this in its June 2013 > meeting and send some recommendations to the UNGA. The 2nd Committee will > prepare probably a resolution which include principles and procedures for > both the 2014 and 2015 events. > > The 2014 event in Sharm el Sheikh is back-to-back to the ITU World > Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) which will be prepared by a > series of regional development conferences within the coming months. While > there is no direct formal link between WTDC and WSIS 10+, one can expect > that this process will be steered primarily by the ITU. > > What civil society should do now is to draft a formal statement with the > aim to clarify the procedures for the full and equal involvment of CS into > the preparatory process for the two events in 2014 and 2015 as well as into > the drafting of a 2015+ strategy. This statement should refer also to the > CS Declaration from 2003 and reiterate basic CS values as still relevant in > 2013++. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179%7C1208 > > Wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun May 19 23:06:42 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:06:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS 10+ In-Reply-To: <564759640.23773.1369004502785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m09> References: <1506840539.12334.1368975584046.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p20> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <564759640.23773.1369004502785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m09> Message-ID: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Wolfgang > > just to prevent a misunderstanding : > > I clearly heard (Wednesday morning WSIS + 10 Session, room Popov) Adama > sentence (i.e. condemn) the PPP and asking for replacing it by a "PMA" > ("Partenariat Multi-Acteurs") since his discourse was in french. He > further motivated his proposal saying that this fundamental change responds > to the need to have CS playing its necessary role. I also exchanged > privately with him and I confirm this statement. > I heard Adama saying the same thing as Jean-Louis heard. > Consequently, it was somehow strange to hear the comment of his eminent > malian brother Hamadoun Toure, pointing out that the acronym PMA is already > used (in french it means Least Developed Country, LDC) and therefore > another "thing" should be found. > E.g. MAP (Multi-Actors Partnership) > I subscribe to all your comments and views about the due CS implication in > the future of WSIS and do hope that somebody of CONGO will succeed in > revitalizing the CS eminent role in the near future. > > Alles Gute > > Jean-Louis > > - - - > > > Message du 19/05/13 17:53 > > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , > governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "FouadBajwa" , "CarlosA.Afonso" > > Copie à : "AndreaGlorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > > Objet : AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ > > > > Jean Louis, > > > > thanks for your quick reply and first comments. > > > > I agree fully that the WSIS++ has to go far beyond the areas where the > IGC is active. I think it is a great idea to revitalize the wsis-cs list. I > have no idea whether this list is still alive. In case not, we have to open > a new list. > > > > I also fully agree that in the WSIS 10+ process, as it is pushed forward > at the moment by the "triumvirat" ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, civil society is > totally sidelined and pushed back to a pre-Geneva situation were some > handpicked CS individuals or representatives were invited to make a > statement just to give the illusion that all stakeholders are included. I > was also shocked to hear that Adama went back to a "public-private > partnership" model! Where is his memory? > > > > This is unacceptable. But it needs an organized CS. We learned some > lessons on the road to Tunis, but we have to push now the re-start button. > > [snip] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 20 05:09:42 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:09:42 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ References: <1506840539.12334.1368975584046.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p20> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <564759640.23773.1369004502785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m09> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331A04@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi sorry for my misundestanding. I was in the Popow room and I had only the english version and misunderstood what he had said. However I would avoid to introduce new confusing language to replace what we already have in the Tunis Agenda describing what we want to have (IG definition etc.) w ________________________________ Von: pouzin at gmail.com im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well) Gesendet: Mo 20.05.2013 05:06 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK Cc: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; FouadBajwa; CarlosA.Afonso; AndreaGlorioso; McTim; Parminder Betreff: [governance] WSIS 10+ On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear Wolfgang just to prevent a misunderstanding : I clearly heard (Wednesday morning WSIS + 10 Session, room Popov) Adama sentence (i.e. condemn) the PPP and asking for replacing it by a "PMA" ("Partenariat Multi-Acteurs") since his discourse was in french. He further motivated his proposal saying that this fundamental change responds to the need to have CS playing its necessary role. I also exchanged privately with him and I confirm this statement. I heard Adama saying the same thing as Jean-Louis heard. Consequently, it was somehow strange to hear the comment of his eminent malian brother Hamadoun Toure, pointing out that the acronym PMA is already used (in french it means Least Developed Country, LDC) and therefore another "thing" should be found. E.g. MAP (Multi-Actors Partnership) I subscribe to all your comments and views about the due CS implication in the future of WSIS and do hope that somebody of CONGO will succeed in revitalizing the CS eminent role in the near future. Alles Gute Jean-Louis - - - > Message du 19/05/13 17:53 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "FouadBajwa" , "CarlosA.Afonso" > Copie à : "AndreaGlorioso" , "McTim" , "Parminder" > Objet : AW: [governance] WSIS 10+ > > Jean Louis, > > thanks for your quick reply and first comments. > > I agree fully that the WSIS++ has to go far beyond the areas where the IGC is active. I think it is a great idea to revitalize the wsis-cs list. I have no idea whether this list is still alive. In case not, we have to open a new list. > > I also fully agree that in the WSIS 10+ process, as it is pushed forward at the moment by the "triumvirat" ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, civil society is totally sidelined and pushed back to a pre-Geneva situation were some handpicked CS individuals or representatives were invited to make a statement just to give the illusion that all stakeholders are included. I was also shocked to hear that Adama went back to a "public-private partnership" model! Where is his memory? > > This is unacceptable. But it needs an organized CS. We learned some lessons on the road to Tunis, but we have to push now the re-start button. > [snip] -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 20 06:29:54 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:29:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement Message-ID: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> Thanks to those who offered amendments to the draft proposal for the IGF to develop a multi-stakeholder opinion based on the Brazilian proposal. The marked-up text with the amendments is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here (half an hour later than promised, sorry): http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ I didn't make any further adjustments to the amendments that others proposed, except for the following: * Typographical amendments/corrections. * Since "recommendations" is a touchy word, I changed language that someone had added on "recommendations" to read "opinions". * Although she didn't propose text, Joy made some substantive comments that I had to try to reflect as best I could, without clashing too much with amendments that others had made. So I: o Removed some of the detail about the process ("Groups would be equipped with writing materials, copies of the background paper, a flip chart, and a neutral facilitator"). o Changed the title from "Multistakeholder opinions: an experiment for the IGF" to "Proposal for a multistakeholder opinion on operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance". o Added a new sentence "It is not proposed as a broad-based solution to address a range of policy issues, but as a response to this particular call for the Brazilian opinion to be discussed various other fora". Anriette and Valeria had offered to deliver the text to the open consultation/MAG - I guess this is on the assumption that they are still satisfied with it. I'll also ask one of the technical community members if they are willing to speak up in favour of it, to show a measure of multi-stakeholder support. We are still waiting to hear from Brazil. I realise that the text as it now stands will not satisfy everyone, and if you are one of those then of course, please don't feel pressured to endorse it. We are not putting this forward as a statement of civil society or the Best Bits group at large, but only those who choose to support it. I'm not sure exactly when there will be an opportunity to put this forward at the open consultation/MAG meeting, because that depends on how the meeting goes, but the text will be open for endorsement until that time. Thanks everyone! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 20 11:22:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:22:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> References: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130520172233.2e9d6241@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here: > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ Thanks again, Jeremy, for this good initiative. Hoping that this will result in some positive momentum... 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 20 12:14:15 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:14:15 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement References: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> <20130520172233.2e9d6241@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331A19@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx Jeremy, I fully support your basic approach. One argument, which will be used by the ITU (and some of its member states) is that the WTPF (or the UNGIS controlled WSIS Forum) is better than the IGF, is that this (UN led) platforms produce concrete output in form of agreed "Opinions" or "Joint Statements". This argument will come back in the UNGA 2014 when the mandate of the IGF - which ends in 2015 - has to be renewed. To counterbalance this argument the MAG has to take the IGF Improvement WG recommendation seriously to produce concrete output, as you have said correctly. The IGF mandate from the TA allows recommendation, as appropriate, on emerging issues. Today you can nearly all new Internet related questions define as "emerging issues". So - as you have pointed out - there is no need to change the mandate. It is up to the MAG to take the next steps and to introduce some procedures and mechanisms which would allow to produce concrete output. I have argued already since the MAG meeting in 2007 (before Rio de Janeiro) to introduce a new category in form of "messages". "IGF Messages" would not have the political burden of a "recommendation" (which is pre-defined in a UN context) and would also not duplicate ITU´s "opinions". BTW, a growing number of regional and national IGFs are now producing "Messages". EURODIG, the European IGF had "Messages from Madrid" (2010), "Messeges from Belgrade" (2011) and "Messages from Stockholm" (2012). The German IGF did send "Messages from Berlin" to the IGFs in Vilnjus, Nairobi and Baku, So it would be part of an organic process if the IGF moves towards the production of IGF messages. Here is my proposal I renewed in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG in 2011 when I was its member. http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/Wolfgang_Kleinwachter.pdf With other words I would not propose that the IGF would start to produce "opinions" to duplicate the WTPF. However I fully support that the substance of the rejected WPTF Opinion 7 should be discussed in the IGF context. Another effort in this direction is underway in the MAG Working Group on Internet Governance Principles which was established by the MAG meeting in Paris in February 2013 with a mandate to prepare the relevant Bali Plenary. Such a MAG led working group (or working groups), chaired by a MAG member and with a very limited mandate, could become a mechanism which can develop procedures how to produce output in a multistakeholder environment. This is a complicated innovation for policy making among governmental and non-govenrmental stakeholders, but it is worth to start it and test it out. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mo 20.05.2013 17:22 An: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here: > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ Thanks again, Jeremy, for this good initiative. Hoping that this will result in some positive momentum... 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 katitza at eff.org Mon May 20 19:02:07 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:02:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door #TPP negotiations in Lima In-Reply-To: <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> Message-ID: <519AAB6F.1040007@eff.org> perhaps of interest of another forum dealing with internet rights in a closed door negotiations. See video! An EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door #TPP negotiations in Lima: https://eff.org/r.b9RR #yaratpp https://twitter.com/EFF/status/336608898574319617 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 21 01:44:10 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:44:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door #TPP negotiations in Lima In-Reply-To: <519AAB6F.1040007@eff.org> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> <519AAB6F.1040007@eff.org> Message-ID: <519B09AA.7030608@gmail.com> This is a wonderful dialectic for governance. On the one hand we have a BUTOC (bottom up transparent and open etc - although context is important to put the CIR institutions too easily into this label imho) and then hardcore secret negotiations on economic issues that are in effect the same level as dealing with terrorists. Participation, inclusion, democracy and deliberation take on a qualitatively different meaning under such dialectics... methinks... On 2013/05/21 02:02 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > perhaps of interest of another forum dealing with internet rights in a > closed door negotiations. See video! > > An EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door > #TPP negotiations in Lima: https://eff.org/r.b9RR #yaratpp > https://twitter.com/EFF/status/336608898574319617 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 21 02:51:14 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:51:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Industrial_Progress=2C_revisited?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <20480FF4-B6C0-4596-8626-93D90CCE1F65@istaff.org> <51978080.6060103@itforchange.net> <5197AE1C.5060500@itforchange.net> <5198A8BF.9010905@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <519B1962.8010905@gmail.com> Fouad Thanks for this. I just foundthis link that is somewhat tangential, but if MS cannot take these realist dynamics into account (so as to ensure power balance) then I am afraid it can in certain circumstances be BigGovt and BigBusiness vs the public interest. Of course the centre is squishy and the edges fuzzy but if this is what jurisdiction in the US means (without MANY of the international human rights conventions norms that the US has not signed) then there is cause for worry... Riaz On 2013/05/19 02:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Big business lobbying itself is based on some kind of principles on -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue May 21 05:14:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 21:14:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 consultations (webcast) Message-ID: IGF 2013 Consultations webcast: http://bit.ly/11TZub7 Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue May 21 08:37:35 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:37:35 -0400 Subject: ICANN's "constituency silos" (was: Re: [governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal) In-Reply-To: <89f28f23e4a42968f2f1d4045259a0a5@mail.difference.com.au> References: <002601ce4fca$81a69850$84f3c8f0$@unog.ch> <20130514090950.GA21046@hserus.net> <20130514112642.04e41f96@quill.bollow.ch> <20130514094626.GB21329@hserus.net> <20130515083057.GA8918@hserus.net> <8410FD12-A143-456A-B75A-ABE6ABE58E51@difference.com.au> <5193BAD9.1010109@internetnz.net.nz> <5193E15B.7000003@internetnz.net.nz> <5194AAE1.4070302@internetnz.net.nz> <89f28f23e4a42968f2f1d4045259a0a5@mail.difference.com.au> Message-ID: On May 20, 2013, at 4:12 PM, dave wrote: > My point, John, is that I think no, Constituencies are NOT the problem, > and the 'original structure' of ICANN that you describe positively (with > its changes since, primarily the DNSO becoming a separate CCNSO and GNSO) > maybe now is. I spend roughly 1 day of every ICANN week focussed on > discussions with my constituency, and that seems roughly appropriate to me > (though it always seems very full on the day. But the work performed within > the GNSO silo is now such that, as an active member of the GNSO (I'm a > councillor) I have very limited bandwidth for meeting with others (apart > from socially outside of meeting times). The GNSO, the CCNSO, the GAC, > ALAC, are all now busy enough that the meetings required of active members > (such as GNSO councillors or constituency chairs) relegate discussion with > the other major silos to usually something like a single 1 hour liaison > meeting. > > I think that it can seem externally as if Constituencies are the issue - > the way that public comments are generally seen as coming from a specific > constituency etc may make it seem that way. And certainly much policy > discussion does take place within constituencies in email etc. But the real > work of policy development within ICANN is at the working group level, > which generally have multiple constituencies represented. The DNS policy development process does not appear to reflect your assertion that "the real work of policy development within ICANN is at the working group level", nor does it appear that such efforts actually improve understanding of the issues sufficient to avoid have major policy decisions end up at the ICANN Board (which is a particular strong indicator of a problem in this present policy development process) > Issue based meetings, especially ones that are broader than the usually > very specific scope of a working group report, could potentially be very > valuable. But we simply don't have much time for them. Understood, and that will always be the case regardless of structure and process. > There are, of course, problems with constituencies, and I feel fairly > strongly that they shouldn't be used as a basis for allocation of resources > in the way ICANN uses them now. But the siloization problem ICANN has isn't > at the constituency level - it is at the level above. Dave - can you elaborate some on that final observation (i.e. "level above"?) Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Written whilst on vacation on the beach; replies may be delayed or of limited coherence (depending on time of day ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue May 21 15:53:04 2013 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:53:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Visit Rebecca's CaringBridge site Message-ID: <4.0.0.39C.1CE565CCF054F36.0@cbdl3626.caringbridge.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 22 01:57:59 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:57:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential MSG - PBS Killed Wisconsin Uprising Documentary "Citizen Koch" To Appease Koch Brothers Message-ID: <519C5E67.8060104@gmail.com> [Just more indications that Multistakeholderism will really need to deal with the very intimate relationship between State and BigCorporates, particularly as it relates to the participation of developed countries and 'their' multinational corporations. This is important for internet governance because there are parties that in a multistakeholder context get to double dip (or many more times over) at the inclusiveness trough... That articles like this still get published in the US is important, but needs to be understood beyond a simple safety valve and a few bad apples, if indications are that these are systemic. The question would remain to what extent are companies and folk linked to IG playing this kind of role particularly when profit rather than efficiency or effectiveness or service is the goal.] PBS Killed Wisconsin Uprising Documentary "Citizen Koch" To Appease Koch Brothers Tuesday, 21 May 2013 09:19 By Brendan Fischer , PRWatch | Report * 97 * font size decrease font size increase font size * Print * Email (Photo: Elsewhere Films)(Photo: Elsewhere Films)"Citizen Koch," a documentary about money in politics focused on the Wisconsin uprising, was shunned by PBS for fear of offending billionaire industrialist David Koch, who has given $23 million to public television, according to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker . The dispute highlights the increasing role of private money in "public" television and raises even further concerns about the Kochs potentially purchasing eight major daily newspapers. The film from Academy Award-nominated filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin documents how the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision helped pave the way for secret political spending by players like the Kochs, who contributed directly and indirectly to the election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in 2010 and came to his aid again when the battle broke out over his effort to limit collective bargaining. Originally slated to appear on PBS stations nationwide as part of the "Independent Lens" series, "Citizen Koch" had its funding pulled after David Koch was offended by another PBS documentary critical of the billionaire industrialists. "People like the Kochs have worked for decades to undermine public funding for institutions like PBS," Deal told the Center for Media and Democracy. "When public dollars dry up, private dollars come in to make up for the shortfall." And that private funding can conflict with PBS' "public" mission and its editorial integrity. The PBS distributor "backed out of the partnership because they came to fear the reaction our film would provoke," Deal and Lessin said in a statement. "David Koch, whose political activities are featured in the film, happens to be a public-television funder and a trustee of both [New York PBS member station] WNET and [Boston member station] WGBH. This wasn't a failed negotiation or a divergence of visions; it was censorship, pure and simple." *"Park Avenue" Documentary Raised Koch Hackles* In November of last year, the New York PBS affiliate WNET aired a documentary by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, "Park Avenue," that explored growing income inequality by contrasting the lives of residents in a luxury apartment building in Manhattan with individuals living on the other end of Park Avenue, in the Bronx. The film focuses on one of the apartment's wealthiest residents, David Koch, and does not paint a particularly positive image of the billionaire industrialist and his brother, Charles. Koch is also a board trustee and major donor to WNET. And WNET's president called him before the documentary aired to alert Koch to the critical content -- and took the nearly unprecedented step of airing a disclaimer from Koch following the film calling it "disappointing and divisive." WNET also replaced the original introduction to the film, which had been narrated by actor Stanley Tucci, with one calling the film "controversial" and "provocative." "They tried to undercut the credibility of the film, and I had no opportunity to defend it," the film's director Gibney told Mayer. "Why is WNET offering Mr. Koch special favors?" Independent Television Service (ITVS), an arm of PBS that funds and distributes independent films, had funded "Park Avenue," and aired it as part of ITVS' popular "Independent Lens" series that runs on dozens of PBS member stations. ITVS also funded "Citizen Koch" and it was also slated to be aired on the Independent Lens series. But "Citizen Koch" got caught in the blowback. *Fearing Koch Backlash, Funding Pulled on "Citizen Koch"* ITVS was excited about the "Citizen Koch" documentary before "Park Avenue" aired. In April 2012, the company informed Deal and Lessin their film would receive $150,000, and that "Everyone here at ITVS looks forward to working with you on your very exciting and promising program." But once "Park Avenue" aired, WNET blamed ITVS for impacting its relationship with David Koch and not providing advance notice of the film's contents. Mayer writes: "[WNET President Neal] Shapiro acknowledged that, in his conversations with ITVS officials about 'Park Avenue,' he was so livid that he threatened not to carry its films in the future. The New York metropolitan area is the largest audience for public television, so the threat posed a potentially mortal blow to ITVS." ITVS got the message, and quickly changed its tune on "Citizen Koch." Lessin and Deal began receiving pressure from ITVS executives to change the title and de-emphasize the Kochs' political influence. One executive told the filmmakers the title was "extremely problematic" and that "we live in a world where we have to be aware that people with power have power." On a conference call in January, ITVS executives acknowledged the push-back from WNET over the "Park Avenue" film, and again urged the filmmakers to change the storyline. Sources told Mayer that what their message was "Get rid of the Koch story line ... Because of the whole thing with the Koch brothers, ITVS knew WNET would never air it." "It is always a struggle for documentaries to get out there," Deal told CMD. "That's why PBS and ITVS are so important: they support independent filmmakers to say new things on the public airwaves." But because of funding pressures, "we won't have access to that audience now," he said. "We're disappointed." *PBS Reaction to "Citizen Koch" Proved the Film's Point: Money Talks* "Citizen Koch," which premiered at Sundance in January and competed for Best Documentary, followed the activism and struggles of former Republicans who felt betrayed by Walker's union-busting move (which he never mentioned on the campaign trail). The film documents the role of Koch-funded entities like Americans for Prosperity, which spent $10 million aiding Walker in his recall election. The film's final scene shows an Americans for Prosperity official making the incredible claim the group is "just like the Red Cross, just like any other nonprofit." In April of this year, one day after the film had its Dairy State premiere at the Wisconsin Film Festival, ITVS informed Lessin and Deal it had "decided not to move forward with the project." In a statement, the filmmakers said this is an ironic turn: "It's the very thing our film is about---public servants bowing to pressures, direct or indirect, from high-dollar donors." "I don't believe there was a concerted conspiracy to keep 'Citizen Koch' off of public television, with David Koch as a ringleader," Deal told CMD. "Instead, Koch's presence and role in that world created an environment that was hostile to our message. And that was enough." Just before Mayer's New Yorker article was published, on May 16, David Koch resigned from WNET's board. The resignation was the result, a source told Mayer, "of his unwillingness to back a media organization that had so unsparingly covered its sponsor." As has been widely reported , the Kochs are now considering a purchase of eight major daily newspapers currently owned by the Tribune Companies. And that has Deal worried. "For anybody who says the owner or funder of an outlet doesn't have an impact on what gets published, I hope they'll think again." This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 22 02:14:00 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:14:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Anti-War_News_Site_Sues_FBI_For_Spy?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ing_On_=96_and_Targeting_=96_It_for_Political_Reasons?= Message-ID: <519C6228.9080709@gmail.com> [Only question is does the FBI have jurisdiction over ICANN, etc... it seems like waging an illegal war (after 'collateral damage' killed half a million Iraqi children!) is OK, but simply mobilising peacefully against it is a problem... what use rights if they are not there when Americans specifically need them? At least ACLU and other institutions safeguard the constitution as best they can... ] Anti-War News Site Sues FBI For Spying On – and Targeting – It for Political Reasons Posted on May 22, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Antiwar v. FBI We’ve pointed out that there’s a much bigger story behind the AP and Fox spying scandal . As we’ve reported for years, the government treats folks who speak out against war as potential terrorists . We noted in 2011: Anti-war websites like AntiWar.com are listed on various terrorist watchlists : see number 16 here , and number 37 here . AntiWar’s sin? It is (according to the watchlists): An unusual site, essentially an isolationist right-wing/libertarian site consciously designed to appeal to anti-war activists from the left as well. The irony, of course , is [that] Americans want to put a stop to perpetual warfare … Today, Antiwar.com – with the help of the ACLU – filed suit against the FBI: Antiwar.com is taking the FBI to court. The website’s founder and managing editor Eric Garris, along with longtime editorial director Justin Raimondo, filed a lawsuit in federal court today, demanding the release of records they believe the FBI is keeping on them and the 17-year-old online magazine. Antiwar.com says this is one more example of post-9/11 government overreach, and a stark reminder that the First Amendment has been treated as little more than a speed bump on the road to a government surveillance state. The lawsuit is particularly timely, considering recent scandals in which the Department of Justice secretly seized months of journalists’ phone records at the Associated Press, and did the same and more to a FOX News reporter , while the IRS is acknowledging it singled out conservative groups that criticize the government for extra scrutiny. Suddenly, the press is more aware than ever that the state has the ability to secretly monitor its activities, heretofore thought of as constitutionally protected from government interference and intimidation. “*Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, whether it’s AP or Antiwar.com*,” said Julia Harumi Mass, staff attorney for the *American Civil Liberties Union* of Northern California, which is representing Antiwar.com in the case. “*FBI surveillance of news organizations interferes with journalists’ ability to do their jobs as watchdogs that hold the government accountable*.” The suit was filed on Tuesday at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Both Garris and Raimondo live and work in the San Francisco Bay area. According to the suit, the ACLU has made several futile attempts to obtain the FBI files since a reader alerted Garris and Raimondo to this lengthy FBI memo in 2011. The details in question begin at page 62 of the heavily redacted 94-page document. It’s clear from these documents, the suit alleges, that the FBI has files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommends further monitoring of the website in the form of opening a “preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.” “On one hand *it seemed almost funny that we would be considered a threat to national security, but it’s very scary, because what we are engaging in is free speech, and free speech by ordinary citizens and journalists is now being considered a threat to national security and they don’t have to prove it because the government has the ability to suppress information and not disclose any of their activities* – as witnessed with what is going on now at the AP and other things,” said Garris. “*The government’s attitude is they want to know all, but they want the public to know as little as possible*.” *In response, the ACLU began filing requests in December 2011 under the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for any records the FBI was currently holding on Antiwar.com*, which describes itself as a Libertarian-inspired project of the Randolph Bourne Institute. It was clear from reading the memo that Antiwar.com came under the radar in part for its mission, which is characterized as publishing a *non-interventionist* “online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government.” [Full disclosure, this writer is a regular contributor]. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America’s foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which. The website was also targeted, according to the FBI memo, for links it published to counter-terrorism watch lists (which were already in the public domain), and for the people who were visiting Antiwar.com and/or talking it up at rallies. The FBI noted at least two of Raimondo’s columns and wondered openly, “who are (Antiwar.com’s) contributors and what are the funds utilized for?” This, after acknowledging there was *no evidence of any crime being plotted or committed*. “*This illustrates the troubling, continuing efforts of the federal government to monitor protected speech activity without evidence or even allegation of criminal activity*,” said Mass, who explained that there are specific prohibitions against such surveillance and record-keeping in the 1974 Privacy Act [5 U.S.C 552a(e)(7)] . After Raimondo wrote about the FBI memo in August 2011 , which at the time, independent journalist Marcy Wheeler at EmptyWheel.net deemed a “troubling story,” Antiwar.com started losing donors, and according to the lawsuit, it was big time. In October 2011, *one of Antiwar.com’s major donors withdrew his financial support from Antiwar.com out of concern that the FBI would monitor him* if he continued to provide, as he wished to do, financial support to Antiwar.com. Since then, three significant donors have also withdrawn financial support, citing their fear that FBI interest in Antiwar.com would lead to surveillance of the donors as a reason for withdrawing financial support. As a result, Antiwar.com has lost about $75,000 per year since 2011 in otherwise expected contributions. Reached over the weekend, Wheeler, who routinely investigates and reports on the impact of post-9/11 government surveillance on civil liberties for EmptyWheel.net , voiced her concern about the apparent FBI surveillance of Antiwar.com and its far-reaching implications. “It’s likely (the) FBI is hiding one or another things: Bush era *investigations into the peace community* that were improper to start with, and/or the degree to which First Amendment activities have become one reason to investigate completely innocent activity,” she said. After a series of FOIA requests, amended requests and empty responses, Garris and Raimondo have “received no agency determination setting forth whether Defendant FBI intends to produce records or any basis for withholding them,” since the last request dated May 24, 2012. Taking it to court, Mass said, is the next step. “Our clients are entitled to obtain records the FBI has gathered about them and their online magazine,” she said. “This is especially important because the FBI’s surveillance has impacted our clients’ ability to maintain support for their website and has impacted their editorial choices– exactly the type of harm the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.” *** [One of the reasons that the FBI was investigating the non-interventionist website is because] an article that listed Antiwar.com as a reference was handed out in 2002 at a “peaceful protest” at a British air base in the U.K. *** “There are several unanswered questions regarding www.antiwar.com,” reads the FBI memo. “It describes itself as a non-profit group that survives on generous contributions from its readers. Who are these contributors and what are the funds used for?” *** The unidentified agent writing the memo concludes, “it is recommended that ECAU (Electronic Communications Analysis Unit) further monitor the postings on the website … it is recommended that a PI (preliminary investigation) is opened to determine if [line redacted] have engaged in, or are engaging in, activities which constitute a threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power.” This is the decisive point of the memo as it pertains to Antiwar.com: that Garris and Raimondo and Antiwar.com, for writing about a particularly sensitive subject and for linking to information that is already circulating around the Internet, may be a “threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power,” and therefore subject to secret surveillance. *That would make any journalist, who say, linked a story to documents published by Wikileaks, which is currently under federal investigation , suspect too, surmised the plaintiffs*. “*This sort of government activity is so chilling because it puts the fear of government at a higher level, and among the news media*,” said Garris, noting the negative effect that federal leak investigations are already having on the free press. “*Once the people aren’t able to get information, the government can, potentially, have unlimited power*.” According to Mass, the ACLU is filing a separate, administrative request to the FBI to find and further expunge any files it may have on Garris and Raimondo. “The government,” concluded Mass, “cannot keep records about people’s exercise of free speech unless it is related to a criminal investigation.” The government is spying on every American … and treating peaceful protesters as potential terrorists . As we noted in March, the Constitution is on the ropes : The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent , and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny. For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today: * Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game ; and see this ) * Using social media * Reporting or doing journalism * Speaking out against government policies * Protesting anything (such as participating in the “Occupy” movement ) * Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security ; and see this ) * Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism . And see this ) * Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing ?) * Paying cash at an Internet cafe * Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans * Holding gold * Creating alternative currencies * Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food , and most Hawaiians store up on extra food ) * Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them” * Investigating factory farming * Infringing a copyright * Taking pictures or videos * Talking to police officers * Wearing a hoodie * Driving a van * Writing on a piece of paper * (Not having a Facebook account may soon be added) And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism: * Being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies” * Valuing online privacy * Supporting Ron Paul or being a libertarian * Liking the Founding Fathers * Being a Christian * Being anti-tax, anti-regulation or for the gold standard * Being “reverent of individual liberty” * Being “anti-nuclear” * “Believe in conspiracy theories” * “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack” * “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)” * “Insert religion into the political sphere” * “Those who seek to politicize religion” * “Supported political movements for autonomy” * Being “anti-abortion” * Being “anti-Catholic” * Being “anti-global” * “Suspicious of centralized federal authority” * “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)” * “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism” * Opposing genetically engineered food * Opposing surveillance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 22 03:13:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:13:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging Message-ID: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> Whatever certain of our ``civil society`` colleagues might say (or want... the loss of tax revenue facilitated by various tax havens and the Internet enabled capacity to seamlessly and without cost shift activities/formal locations etc. is starting to hurt and some sort of coordinated policy framework is likely to emerge. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/global/ireland-defends-attractive -tax-rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 22 03:28:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 12:58:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Given that you put civil society in quotes I suppose you doubt their credentials to be identified as civil society That bit of innuendo aside, I for one don't particularly like the practice but I would like to call your attention to three things 1. Tax avoidance, unlike tax evasion, is not a crime 2. This appears to be exclusively a dispute between various national tax authorities and multi national companies 3. More to the point, I fail to see any particular relevance of this issue to internet governance so i would be glad if you could go into more detail on that aspect --srs (htc one x) On 22 May 2013 12:43:51 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > Whatever certain of our ``civil society`` colleagues might say (or want... > the loss of tax revenue facilitated by various tax havens and the Internet > enabled capacity to seamlessly and without cost shift activities/formal > locations etc. is starting to hurt and some sort of coordinated policy > framework is likely to emerge. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/global/ireland-defends-attractive > -tax-rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed May 22 03:38:36 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:38:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh It has an implication that tax policies have with certain companies in terms of political cronyism et al. Through certain tax policies a sureptitious control of the internet find its ugly way to this sphere. And this is why that policy process has to be carefully monitored. We are walking along a booby trap and legal minds on the caucaus have to be extremely alert. I"ll be back latter. Aaron On 5/22/13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Given that you put civil society in quotes I suppose you doubt their > credentials to be identified as civil society > > That bit of innuendo aside, I for one don't particularly like the practice > but I would like to call your attention to three things > > 1. Tax avoidance, unlike tax evasion, is not a crime > > 2. This appears to be exclusively a dispute between various national tax > authorities and multi national companies > > 3. More to the point, I fail to see any particular relevance of this issue > to internet governance so i would be glad if you could go into more detail > on that aspect > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 22 May 2013 12:43:51 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: >> Whatever certain of our ``civil society`` colleagues might say (or >> want... >> the loss of tax revenue facilitated by various tax havens and the >> Internet >> enabled capacity to seamlessly and without cost shift activities/formal >> locations etc. is starting to hurt and some sort of coordinated policy >> framework is likely to emerge. >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/global/ireland-defends-attractive >> -tax-rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss >> >> > > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 22 03:49:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:19:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <13ecb36668e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> In which case a discussion with specifics is in order Please do share your thoughts --srs (htc one x) On 22 May 2013 1:08:36 PM Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Suresh > > It has an implication that tax policies have with certain companies in > terms of political cronyism et al. > > Through certain tax policies a sureptitious control of the internet > find its ugly way to this sphere. And this is why that policy process > has to be carefully monitored. > > We are walking along a booby trap and legal minds on the caucaus have > to be extremely alert. > > I"ll be back latter. > > Aaron > > On 5/22/13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Given that you put civil society in quotes I suppose you doubt their > > credentials to be identified as civil society > > > > That bit of innuendo aside, I for one don't particularly like the practice > > but I would like to call your attention to three things > > > > 1. Tax avoidance, unlike tax evasion, is not a crime > > > > 2. This appears to be exclusively a dispute between various national tax > > authorities and multi national companies > > > > 3. More to the point, I fail to see any particular relevance of this issue > > to internet governance so i would be glad if you could go into more detail > > on that aspect > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 22 May 2013 12:43:51 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Whatever certain of our ``civil society`` colleagues might say (or > >> want... > >> the loss of tax revenue facilitated by various tax havens and the > >> Internet > >> enabled capacity to seamlessly and without cost shift activities/formal > >> locations etc. is starting to hurt and some sort of coordinated policy > >> framework is likely to emerge. > >> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/global/ireland-defends-attractive > >> -tax-rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist-OutCome Mapper > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 22 08:23:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:23:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Given that you put civil society in quotes I suppose you doubt their > credentials to be identified as civil society Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who is in which SH group. > > That bit of innuendo aside, I for one don't particularly like the practice +1 > but I would like to call your attention to three things > > 1. Tax avoidance, unlike tax evasion, is not a crime correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote the current rules! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 22 19:03:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 01:03:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update Message-ID: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> [IGC Coordinator hat on] Dear all Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 This results in the following random selection of members for the NomCom for the Appeals Team: 10) Carlos Vera Quintana 9) José Francisco Callo Romero 11) Izumi Aizu 21) Wilson Abigaba 17) Rudi Vansnick The reserves are: 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment soon. Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be too impatient in regard to that announcement.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 22 19:12:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 04:42:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> I would propose Izumi san as the non voting chair --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 4:33, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Wed May 22 19:14:33 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:14:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <38FFF417-614C-490D-A184-715C9264C15D@gmail.com> Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 22/05/2013, a las 18:03, Norbert Bollow escribió: > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed May 22 20:06:30 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:06:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <38FFF417-614C-490D-A184-715C9264C15D@gmail.com> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <38FFF417-614C-490D-A184-715C9264C15D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Carlos! :-) I second Suresh's proposal of Izumi as Chair, as long as Izumi would have time to do the job. Deirdre On 22 May 2013 19:14, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... > > Carlos Vera > 0988141143 > > El 22/05/2013, a las 18:03, Norbert Bollow escribió: > > > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > > > Dear all > > > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 11) Izumi Aizu > > 21) Wilson Abigaba > > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > > > The reserves are: > > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > > soon. > > > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 22 20:33:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 02:33:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I would propose Izumi san as the non voting chair I agree that he would be a very good choice for this role. However: While my understanding of the charter is that it is not specified whether the non voting chair is one of the five persons who were randomly selected from the pool of volunteers, or someone else, I believe that it is customary to appoint someone as non voting chair who is not one of those who were randomly selected. One benefit of this approach is that reaching a decision can be easier with five voting members than with an even number of voting members such as four. > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > > 11) Izumi Aizu > > 21) Wilson Abigaba > > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > > > The reserves are: > > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... Special congratulations to you then... you got the "slot 1" even (not that it matters, really.) :-) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 22 20:38:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 06:08:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I was not aware of this convention In that case I would suggest Peter hellmonds if he will accept the role --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 6:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I would propose Izumi san as the non voting chair > > I agree that he would be a very good choice for this role. However: > > While my understanding of the charter is that it is not specified > whether the non voting chair is one of the five persons who were > randomly selected from the pool of volunteers, or someone else, I > believe that it is customary to appoint someone as non voting chair > who is not one of those who were randomly selected. One benefit of > this approach is that reaching a decision can be easier with five > voting members than with an even number of voting members such as > four. > >>> This results in the following random selection of members for the >>> NomCom for the Appeals Team: >>> >>> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana >>> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero >>> 11) Izumi Aizu >>> 21) Wilson Abigaba >>> 17) Rudi Vansnick >>> >>> The reserves are: >>> 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) >>> 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > > Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > >> Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... > > Special congratulations to you then... you got the "slot 1" even (not > that it matters, really.) :-) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Wed May 22 20:43:06 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:43:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process: "A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797." So if we elect an additional member as chair, will have 6 members, 5 voting and one non voting and not 5 as per charter Carlos Vera 2013/5/22 Suresh Ramasubramanian > I was not aware of this convention > > In that case I would suggest Peter hellmonds if he will accept the role > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 6:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> I would propose Izumi san as the non voting chair > > > > I agree that he would be a very good choice for this role. However: > > > > While my understanding of the charter is that it is not specified > > whether the non voting chair is one of the five persons who were > > randomly selected from the pool of volunteers, or someone else, I > > believe that it is customary to appoint someone as non voting chair > > who is not one of those who were randomly selected. One benefit of > > this approach is that reaching a decision can be easier with five > > voting members than with an even number of voting members such as > > four. > > > >>> This results in the following random selection of members for the > >>> NomCom for the Appeals Team: > >>> > >>> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > >>> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > >>> 11) Izumi Aizu > >>> 21) Wilson Abigaba > >>> 17) Rudi Vansnick > >>> > >>> The reserves are: > >>> 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > >>> 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > > > > > Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > > > >> Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... > > > > Special congratulations to you then... you got the "slot 1" even (not > > that it matters, really.) :-) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 23 01:23:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:23:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service Message-ID: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t erms-service# A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with more traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 01:40:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:10:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service In-Reply-To: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> References: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> Joining Facebook, to work towards human rights http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/ And, to answer your question, "no" --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 10:53, "michael gurstein" wrote: > http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t > erms-service# > > A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with more > traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? > > M > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu May 23 01:59:44 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 07:59:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <24C3B3A1-09BD-4645-B953-798E9BE2727D@ella.com> Hi, Further down you find: 2. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. so perhaps properly speaking the chair is not part of the nomcom, but extra to it. i beleive it was intended to be a person other than one of the 5 voting members. and that is certainly the practice we have followed up until this point. I agree about Peter, he is always a good choice for hard tasks. avri On 23 May 2013, at 02:43, Carlos Vera wrote: > In http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process: > > "A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797." > > So if we elect an additional member as chair, will have 6 members, 5 voting and one non voting and not 5 as per charter > > Carlos Vera > > 2013/5/22 Suresh Ramasubramanian > I was not aware of this convention > > In that case I would suggest Peter hellmonds if he will accept the role > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 6:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> I would propose Izumi san as the non voting chair > > > > I agree that he would be a very good choice for this role. However: > > > > While my understanding of the charter is that it is not specified > > whether the non voting chair is one of the five persons who were > > randomly selected from the pool of volunteers, or someone else, I > > believe that it is customary to appoint someone as non voting chair > > who is not one of those who were randomly selected. One benefit of > > this approach is that reaching a decision can be easier with five > > voting members than with an even number of voting members such as > > four. > > > >>> This results in the following random selection of members for the > >>> NomCom for the Appeals Team: > >>> > >>> 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > >>> 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > >>> 11) Izumi Aizu > >>> 21) Wilson Abigaba > >>> 17) Rudi Vansnick > >>> > >>> The reserves are: > >>> 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > >>> 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > > > > > Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > > > >> Hi. First time in live I get some lottery... > > > > Special congratulations to you then... you got the "slot 1" even (not > > that it matters, really.) :-) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 23 02:32:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:32:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service In-Reply-To: <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> References: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> Message-ID: <02d801ce577f$68c754c0$3a55fe40$@gmail.com> Hmmm… More do as I say, not as I do? M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service Joining Facebook, to work towards human rights http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/ And, to answer your question, "no" --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 10:53, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t erms-service# A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with more traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 02:41:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:11:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service In-Reply-To: <02d801ce577f$68c754c0$3a55fe40$@gmail.com> References: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> <02d801ce577f$68c754c0$3a55fe40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: not really, though uncivil society might regard it so --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 12:02, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hmmm… More do as I say, not as I do? > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:41 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service > > Joining Facebook, to work towards human rights > > http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/ > > And, to answer your question, "no" > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 10:53, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t > erms-service# > > A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with more > traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? > > M > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 23 03:50:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:50:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: > Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who > is in which SH group. It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be a means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood. > correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote > the current rules! As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC arrangments.... While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is hardly a matter that is irrelevant... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 03:51:52 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:51:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] EFF: New animated video about TPP and it's chilling effects on Internet users In-Reply-To: <519D5598.8030304@eff.org> References: <519D5598.8030304@eff.org> Message-ID: <519DCA98.3010908@gmail.com> Our blog post: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/new-animated-video-about-tpp-and-its-chilling-effects Standalone video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOSYMWf2drE -- Maira Sutton Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation -www.eff.org maira at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 x175 :: Defending Freedom in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 03:57:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:27:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk of multistakeholderism. If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged in one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea - "astroturfing", say - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in the IG field, you view their every action as negative and to be opposed. Funnily enough, that apparently extends even to actions where they might make common cause with civil society. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: >> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who >> is in which SH group. > > It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. > > It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be a means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood. > >> correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote >> the current rules! > As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC arrangments.... > > While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. > > How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is hardly a matter that is irrelevant... > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 23 04:40:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:40:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> MSism is a method to ensure that all those with a "stake" (interest) in a decision have an opportunity to participate in those decisions. Good faith participation in these "deliberations" (quoting Riaz's excellent discussion) requires that those involved be clear and open as to what their stake/interest is in a particular deliberation. If a participant attempts to mask their interests (or the pursuit of its interests) by, for example, developing mechanisms to have other of the stakeholders surreptitiously articulate or promote these interests while hiding that fact, that is what is normally understood as "astro-turfing"... (as for example having supposedly CS participants/stakeholders pursuing corporate interests rather than the public interest which is what one assumes is their rationale for participation... In an interest based deliberation there will necessarily and of course, be shifting sets of alliances as some interests among some stakeholder groups temporarily align/coincide for some purposes and in some contexts. This is different from the deliberate process of not being open about the interests that one is pursuing or whose interests one is representing. If the shoe fits, wear it... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk of multistakeholderism. If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged in one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea - "astroturfing", say - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in the IG field, you view their every action as negative and to be opposed. Funnily enough, that apparently extends even to actions where they might make common cause with civil society. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: >> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who >> is in which SH group. > > It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. > > It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be a means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood. > >> correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote >> the current rules! > As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC arrangments.... > > While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. > > How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is hardly a matter that is irrelevant... > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 04:53:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: That makes several assumptions, broad, sweeping ones, that I absolutely refuse to share. They are assumptions that, when held and expressed, only serve to drive a wedge between industry and civil society, and poison any attempts at discourse or engagement between these stakeholder groups. The constantly vituperative language and lack of trust used to describe any action at all by a corporation in this space are symptoms of an uncivil society, thankfully shared by what appears to be, at the most, a vocal splinter group among civil society. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 14:10, "michael gurstein" wrote: > MSism is a method to ensure that all those with a "stake" (interest) in a > decision have an opportunity to participate in those decisions. > > Good faith participation in these "deliberations" (quoting Riaz's excellent > discussion) requires that those involved be clear and open as to what their > stake/interest is in a particular deliberation. > > If a participant attempts to mask their interests (or the pursuit of its > interests) by, for example, developing mechanisms to have other of the > stakeholders surreptitiously articulate or promote these interests while > hiding that fact, that is what is normally understood as "astro-turfing"... > (as for example having supposedly CS participants/stakeholders pursuing > corporate interests rather than the public interest which is what one > assumes is their rationale for participation... > > In an interest based deliberation there will necessarily and of course, be > shifting sets of alliances as some interests among some stakeholder groups > temporarily align/coincide for some purposes and in some contexts. This is > different from the deliberate process of not being open about the interests > that one is pursuing or whose interests one is representing. > > If the shoe fits, wear it... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other > enabled tax dodging > > I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk of > multistakeholderism. > > If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged in > one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea - "astroturfing", say > - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in the IG > field, you view their every action as negative and to be opposed. Funnily > enough, that apparently extends even to actions where they might make common > cause with civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> >> On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who >>> is in which SH group. >> >> It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. >> >> It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate > interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a > problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be a > means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is > reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If > reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the > interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if > deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence > compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of > composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to > the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state > as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood. >> >>> correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote >>> the current rules! >> As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC > arrangments.... >> >> While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air > traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... > meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. >> >> How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the > IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS > table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is > hardly a matter that is irrelevant... >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Thu May 23 04:59:08 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:59:08 +0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Congratulations to new NomCom Sincerely *Asif Kabani, MBA* * * *Connect @* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 23 May 2013 04:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu May 23 05:15:10 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:45:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Congratulations to the Nomcom. I feel (of the volunteers) either Ginger Paque or Avri Doria will be a splendid chair. -C On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Thu May 23 05:49:04 2013 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:49:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Welcome to all colleagues in the Nomcom Appeals Team I'm proposing Izumi as non-voting chiar. I know him for several years and I'm confident he will be a good chair for this mission. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen =.=.=.=.=.=.==.= Internet Society Belgium =.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.= www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 23-mei-2013, om 01:03 heeft Norbert Bollow het volgende geschreven: > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Thu May 23 05:54:18 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:54:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I propose Izumi as non-voting chiar, based on his years of experience with IG community. Wishing him all the best. *Asif Kabani, MBA* * * *Connect @* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 23 May 2013 14:49, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Welcome to all colleagues in the Nomcom Appeals Team > > I'm proposing Izumi as non-voting chiar. I know him for several years and > I'm confident he will be a good chair for this mission. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen > =.=.=.=.=.=.==.= Internet Society Belgium =.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.= > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > > Op 23-mei-2013, om 01:03 heeft Norbert Bollow het volgende geschreven: > > [IGC Coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: > 10 23 35 39 45 46 01 > > This results in the following random selection of members for the > NomCom for the Appeals Team: > > 10) Carlos Vera Quintana > 9) José Francisco Callo Romero > 11) Izumi Aizu > 21) Wilson Abigaba > 17) Rudi Vansnick > > The reserves are: > 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) > 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) > > According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a > responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC > membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow > May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment > soon. > > Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining > the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. > > I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons > willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, > and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the > NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation > to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be > too impatient in regard to that announcement.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu May 23 06:33:09 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 03:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1369305189.39949.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 >________________________________ > From: Kabani >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Rudi Vansnick >Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 14:54 >Subject: Re: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update > > > >I propose Izumi as non-voting chiar, based on his years of experience with IG community.  > > > >Wishing him all the best. > > >Asif Kabani, MBA > > >Connect @ >     >Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT > > > >On 23 May 2013 14:49, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >Welcome to all colleagues in the Nomcom Appeals Team >> >>I'm proposing Izumi as non-voting chiar. I know him for several years and I'm confident he will be a good chair for this mission. >> >> >>Kind regards, >> >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO             Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>rudi.vansnick at isoc.be       Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>Dendermondesteenweg 143   B-9070 Destelbergen >>=.=.=.=.=.=.==.= Internet Society Belgium  =.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.= >>www.internetsociety.be      "The Internet is for everyone" >> >>Op 23-mei-2013, om 01:03 heeft Norbert Bollow het volgende geschreven: >> >>[IGC Coordinator hat on] >>> >>>Dear all >>> >>>Today's lotto numbers from the UK National Lottery are in: >>>10 23 35 39 45 46 01 >>> >>>This results in the following random selection of members for the >>>NomCom for the Appeals Team: >>> >>>10) Carlos Vera Quintana >>>9) José Francisco Callo Romero >>>11) Izumi Aizu >>>21) Wilson Abigaba >>>17) Rudi Vansnick >>> >>>The reserves are: >>>8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) >>>2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) >>> >>>According to the Charter, appointing the Non-Voting Chair is a >>>responsibility of the coordinators, with the advice of the IGC >>>membership. (The deadline for such advice is the end of tomorrow >>>May 23.) I hope that we will be able to announce an appointment >>>soon. >>> >>>Thereafter the NomCom will be able to start working on determining >>>the selection criteria for the 2013/14 Appeals Team. >>> >>>I expect that the NomCom will also in due course announce how persons >>>willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, >>>and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the >>>NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation >>>to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be >>>too impatient in regard to that announcement.) >>> >>>Greetings, >>>Norbert >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 06:34:31 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:34:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> Carlos Vera wrote: > In http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process: > > "A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at > random according to the process documented in RFC3797." > > So if we elect an additional member as chair, will have 6 members, 5 > voting and one non voting and not 5 as per charter But is the non voting chair automatically a “member” even if she or he was not one of the five that have been randomly selected? A little later, we have this sentence: All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. The fact that a different term, “participants” ranther than “members”, is used here, IMO allows for the interpretation that the non voting chair does not have to be one of the five that were randomly selected. I would suggest that normally in groups where voting takes place, “members” of the group are persons with voting rights. Avri Doria wrote: > Further down you find: > > 2. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each > nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a > chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one > nomcom previously. > > so perhaps properly speaking the chair is not part of the nomcom, but > extra to it. i beleive it was intended to be a person other than one > of the 5 voting members. and that is certainly the practice we have > followed up until this point. I thought the same until I just checked the reports on http://igcaucus.org/archives-nominations-and-elections ... For the following selections, there was a non voting chair in addition to the five randomly selected NomCom members: * 2006 MAG nominations * 2007 Appeals Team * 2009 MAG nominations * 2012 Appeals Team * 2013 MAG nominations * 2013 nominations for Enhanced Cooperation WG (until Guru resigned) For the following selections, the NomCom had five participants in total including the non voting chair: * 2008 Appeals Team * 2008 MAG nominations * 2010 Appeals Team * 2010 CSTD WG nominations * 2013 nominations for Enhanced Cooperation WG (after Guru resigned) In conclusion, there is significant precedent both for choosing the NomCom non voting chair from among the randomly selected NomCom members and also for choosing the non voting chair from outside this group. 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 23 07:07:00 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:07:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Wired: Obama Stops Championing Treaty That Gives the Blind Better Access to E-Books | Threat Level | Wired.com Message-ID: Very good story by David Kravets from Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/ip-blind-treaty/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 07:17:02 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <039c01ce57a7$14bcde40$3e369ac0$@gmail.com> I think it might be useful to know precisedly what you disagree with in what I wrote... 1. that stakeholderism is about including those with "stakes" i.e. "interests" in a decision (making process) 2. that there are various stakeholders involved in MS processes pursuing various stakes i.e. corporations pursue corporate interests/stakes; governments pursue national interests/stakes; civil society pursues the public/citizen interests/stakes and so on; and alliances/conflicts may develop/shift as between various stakeholders and across various deliberations 3. that deliberations/MS processes are about finding ways of accommodation between stakes/stakeholders 4. that in some instances some parties/stakeholders try to game the system by (surreptitiously) having others present/promote stakes on their behalf M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:54 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: ; Riaz K Tayob Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging That makes several assumptions, broad, sweeping ones, that I absolutely refuse to share. They are assumptions that, when held and expressed, only serve to drive a wedge between industry and civil society, and poison any attempts at discourse or engagement between these stakeholder groups. The constantly vituperative language and lack of trust used to describe any action at all by a corporation in this space are symptoms of an uncivil society, thankfully shared by what appears to be, at the most, a vocal splinter group among civil society. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 14:10, "michael gurstein" wrote: > MSism is a method to ensure that all those with a "stake" (interest) > in a decision have an opportunity to participate in those decisions. > > Good faith participation in these "deliberations" (quoting Riaz's > excellent > discussion) requires that those involved be clear and open as to what > their stake/interest is in a particular deliberation. > > If a participant attempts to mask their interests (or the pursuit of > its > interests) by, for example, developing mechanisms to have other of the > stakeholders surreptitiously articulate or promote these interests > while hiding that fact, that is what is normally understood as "astro-turfing"... > (as for example having supposedly CS participants/stakeholders > pursuing corporate interests rather than the public interest which is > what one assumes is their rationale for participation... > > In an interest based deliberation there will necessarily and of > course, be shifting sets of alliances as some interests among some > stakeholder groups temporarily align/coincide for some purposes and in > some contexts. This is different from the deliberate process of not > being open about the interests that one is pursuing or whose interests one is representing. > > If the shoe fits, wear it... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and > other enabled tax dodging > > I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk > of multistakeholderism. > > If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged > in one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea - > "astroturfing", say > - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in > the IG field, you view their every action as negative and to be > opposed. Funnily enough, that apparently extends even to actions > where they might make common cause with civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> >> On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who >>> is in which SH group. >> >> It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. >> >> It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate > interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a > problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest > may be a means of social organisation, but that does not necessary > imply it is reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a > reasoned outcome. If reason fails in the articulalation of a position > or policy, then the interest may be valid, but its ability to garner > consensus is difficult if deliberative, and depending on numbers easy > if representative. Hence compositional issues are important, if we are > to avoid fallacy of composition. Which is why some USers on this list > may yawn when it comes to the regulatory revolving door in the US and > other places because the state as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood. >> >>> correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who >>> wrote the current rules! >> As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like >> ICANN/DOC > arrangments.... >> >> While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even >> air > traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... > meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. >> >> How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in >> the > IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the > MS table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but > it is hardly a matter that is irrelevant... >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 cveraq at gmail.com Thu May 23 08:26:17 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 07:26:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 23/05/2013, a las 5:34, Norbert Bollow escribió: > Carlos Vera wrote: > >> In http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process: >> >> "A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at >> random according to the process documented in RFC3797." >> >> So if we elect an additional member as chair, will have 6 members, 5 >> voting and one non voting and not 5 as per charter > > But is the non voting chair automatically a “member” even if she or he > was not one of the five that have been randomly selected? > > A little later, we have this sentence: > > All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified > from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. > > The fact that a different term, “participants” ranther than “members”, > is used here, IMO allows for the interpretation that the non voting > chair does not have to be one of the five that were randomly selected. > > I would suggest that normally in groups where voting takes place, > “members” of the group are persons with voting rights. > > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Further down you find: >> >> 2. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each >> nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a >> chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one >> nomcom previously. >> >> so perhaps properly speaking the chair is not part of the nomcom, but >> extra to it. i beleive it was intended to be a person other than one >> of the 5 voting members. and that is certainly the practice we have >> followed up until this point. > > I thought the same until I just checked the reports on > http://igcaucus.org/archives-nominations-and-elections ... > > For the following selections, there was a non voting chair in addition > to the five randomly selected NomCom members: > * 2006 MAG nominations > * 2007 Appeals Team > * 2009 MAG nominations > * 2012 Appeals Team > * 2013 MAG nominations > * 2013 nominations for Enhanced Cooperation WG (until Guru resigned) > > For the following selections, the NomCom had five participants in > total including the non voting chair: > * 2008 Appeals Team > * 2008 MAG nominations > * 2010 Appeals Team > * 2010 CSTD WG nominations > * 2013 nominations for Enhanced Cooperation WG (after Guru resigned) > > In conclusion, there is significant precedent both for choosing the > NomCom non voting chair from among the randomly selected NomCom members > and also for choosing the non voting chair from outside this group. > > 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 Thu May 23 08:39:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:09:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <039c01ce57a7$14bcde40$3e369ac0$@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <039c01ce57a7$14bcde40$3e369ac0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13ed1664290.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Confined to vague hand waving generalities such as the ones below, it may be possible, perhaps to agree that in certain cases you may be right. My question was what part of these, and the other word riaz used - astroturfing - do you feel applies to facebook, this privacy initiative (which from its membership does appear multistakeholder) or both. Specifics if you have any. --srs (htc one x) On 23 May 2013 4:47:02 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > I think it might be useful to know precisedly what you disagree with in what > I wrote... > 1. that stakeholderism is about including those with "stakes" i.e. > "interests" in a decision (making process) > 2. that there are various stakeholders involved in MS processes > pursuing various stakes i.e. corporations pursue corporate interests/stakes; > governments pursue national interests/stakes; civil society pursues the > public/citizen interests/stakes and so on; and alliances/conflicts may > develop/shift as between various stakeholders and across various > deliberations > 3. that deliberations/MS processes are about finding ways of > accommodation between stakes/stakeholders > 4. that in some instances some parties/stakeholders try to game the > system by (surreptitiously) having others present/promote stakes on their > behalf > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, May > 23, 2013 11:54 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: ; Riaz K Tayob > Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other > enabled tax dodging > > That makes several assumptions, broad, sweeping ones, that I absolutely > refuse to share. > > They are assumptions that, when held and expressed, only serve to drive a > wedge between industry and civil society, and poison any attempts at > discourse or engagement between these stakeholder groups. > > The constantly vituperative language and lack of trust used to describe any > action at all by a corporation in this space are symptoms of an uncivil > society, thankfully shared by what appears to be, at the most, a vocal > splinter group among civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 14:10, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > MSism is a method to ensure that all those with a "stake" (interest) in a > decision have an opportunity to participate in those decisions. > > Good faith participation in these "deliberations" (quoting Riaz's excellent > > discussion) requires that those involved be clear and open as to what > their stake/interest is in a particular deliberation. > > If a participant attempts to mask their interests (or the pursuit of its > > interests) by, for example, developing mechanisms to have other of the > stakeholders surreptitiously articulate or promote these interests while > hiding that fact, that is what is normally understood as > "astro-turfing"... > > (as for example having supposedly CS participants/stakeholders pursuing > corporate interests rather than the public interest which is what one > assumes is their rationale for participation... > > In an interest based deliberation there will necessarily and of course, > be shifting sets of alliances as some interests among some stakeholder > groups temporarily align/coincide for some purposes and in some contexts. > This is different from the deliberate process of not being open about the > interests that one is pursuing or whose interests one > is representing. > > If the shoe fits, wear it... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:57 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and > other enabled tax dodging > > I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk of > multistakeholderism. > > If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged in > one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea - "astroturfing", say > > - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in the > IG field, you view their every action as negative and to be opposed. > Funnily enough, that apparently extends even to actions where they might > make common cause with civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > >> >> On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote: > >>> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who is > in which SH group. > >> It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho. > >> It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate > > interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a > problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be > a means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is > reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If > reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the > interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if > deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence > compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of > composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to > the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state > as a site for deliberative politics is in > my view not fully understood. > >> >>> correct. if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who >>> > wrote the current rules! > >> As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC > > arrangments.... > >> While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air > > traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through... > > meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'. > >> How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the > > IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS > table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is > hardly a matter that is irrelevant... > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 23 08:46:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:40 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > If the shoe fits, wear it... If you have specific allegations regarding folks on this list, please air them publicly, otherwise, it is very disrespectful to allege/insinuate without any evidence. -- 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 iza at anr.org Thu May 23 10:23:20 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:23:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Meeting Message-ID: Sorry for not reporting much, though I believe some of you have participated in remote participation thing, Now, we have worked on the workshop selection in the morning, and discussing the Overall theme and all main themes. The following is the one suggested by the Chair, and most of the participants, MAG members show support, except a member from Chinese government has been proposing not to introduce new elements, but stick with old main themes. ---------- Building Bridges: Enhancing Multi-stakeholder collaboration for growth and development (Access and Diversity): Internet as an engine for growth and sustainable development (Openness) Human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet Internet Governance principles (Security) Legal and other frameworks: Spam, Hacking and Cyber-crime Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation Enhanced Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation ----- The central point seemed to be Human Right and Freedom of Expression to be included as Main theme, but not explicitly or directly opposed to. Markus is trying to close the discussion and if we do not agree, he will report this result to New York. Izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 10:30:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:30:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the “members selected at random”: A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: This document describes a method for making random selections in such a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are selected randomly, for a total of six participants. 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 cveraq at gmail.com Thu May 23 10:48:01 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:48:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <42077FAB-D65C-4B31-9A12-F487A593CB2D@gmail.com> It's very concrete. You're right! I agree with you now! Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 23/05/2013, a las 9:30, Norbert Bollow escribió: > Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > >> Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote >> ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if >> there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) > > More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where > it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members > picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: > > The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of > a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven > members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. > > Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the > “members selected at random”: > > A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected > at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. > > Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: > > This document describes a method for making random selections in such > a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. > As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF > Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers > is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. > > Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of > how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is > pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the > Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a > participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are > selected randomly, for a total of six participants. > > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu May 23 10:48:30 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:48:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs clarification in the Charter. I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of having an uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and including someone with no responsibility to vote who can facilitate the process itself. Deirdre On 23 May 2013 10:30, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > > > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote > > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if > > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) > > More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where > it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members > picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: > > The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of > a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven > members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. > > Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the > “members selected at random”: > > A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected > at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. > > Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: > > This document describes a method for making random selections in such > a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. > As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF > Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers > is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. > > Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of > how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is > pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the > Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a > participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are > selected randomly, for a total of six participants. > > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 23 11:04:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:04:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:40 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > > If the shoe fits, wear it... > > > If you have specific allegations regarding folks on this list, please > air them publicly, otherwise, it is very disrespectful to > allege/insinuate without any evidence. [with IGC coordinator hat on] Actually we don't need more talking about each other on the IGC list, we need to get to the point where there is significantly less of it. Therefore I hereby request that if this thread is continued, it should be returned to its substantive discussion topics, such as whether the Internet enables tax avoidance, whether it is desirable to take any actions (such as a reform of tax systems?) to reduce tax avoidance oriented uses of the Internet, whether and how given the fact that opportunities for tax avoidance are sometimes ruthlessly exploited, multistakeholder Internet governance arrangements should be designed for robustness against potential attempts to exploit weaknesses, etc, etc. 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 Thu May 23 11:34:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:34:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? Remember, the exact same tax laws are used by manufacturing companies that locate plants in mexico and china, accounting departments in ireland or the bahamas etc. This is absolutely not specific to the internet, or to its governance. I agree it is a significant issue, but this is completely unrelated to internet governance. Norbert Bollow [23/05/13 17:04 +0200]: >McTim wrote: > >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:40 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > If the shoe fits, wear it... >> >> >> If you have specific allegations regarding folks on this list, please >> air them publicly, otherwise, it is very disrespectful to >> allege/insinuate without any evidence. > >[with IGC coordinator hat on] > >Actually we don't need more talking about each other on the IGC list, >we need to get to the point where there is significantly less of it. > >Therefore I hereby request that if this thread is continued, it should >be returned to its substantive discussion topics, such as whether the >Internet enables tax avoidance, whether it is desirable to take any >actions (such as a reform of tax systems?) to reduce tax avoidance >oriented uses of the Internet, whether and how given the fact that >opportunities for tax avoidance are sometimes ruthlessly exploited, >multistakeholder Internet governance arrangements should be designed for >robustness against potential attempts to exploit weaknesses, etc, etc. > >Greetings, >Norbert > >-- >Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 23 11:41:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:41:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom process: Charter clarification? (was: NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update) In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130523174109.2a475683@quill.bollow.ch> Deirdre Williams wrote: > I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs > clarification in the Charter. I agree that it would be good to clarify this. The current language is too open to conflicting interpretations. There are several ways in which this could potentially be clarified, including: (a) The non-voting chair is always chosen from outside the group of randomly selected NomCom members. (b) The non-voting chair is always chosen from within the group of randomly selected NomCom members. Even if none of them have ever served on a NomCom before, the coordinators are not allowed to appoint a non-voting chair from outside the group of random selected NomCom members. (c) The non-voting chair should normally be chosen from outside the group of randomly selected NomCom members, but in an exceptional situation the coordinators may appoint one of the randomly selected NomCom members as non-voting chair, provided that this person agrees to thereby forsake their voting rights. > I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used > the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? What happened was that there was a chair who was not one of the random selectees and who found it necessary to resign in the middle of the NomCom's work due to a conflict of interest which emerged at that time. After that resignation, one of the randomly selected NomCom members agreed to take over the role of non-voting chair. I did not participate in the process that led to that decision (because I also had a conflict of interests) but I agree that formalities aside, that was a better way forward than bringing in a new non-voting chair from the outside. In view of this experience, I think that rule 'c' is better than 'a'. Rule 'b' is not a good choice at all IMO, since it is entirely possible for a random selection to yield five persons without any previous NomCom experience, and/or without the necessary leadership skills for chairing a NomCom. > The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable > to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of > having an uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and > including someone with no responsibility to vote who can facilitate > the process itself. Yes, I absolutely agree... I only went digging in the RFCs after it was challenged whether my understanding of this part of the IGC Charter is in fact correct. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu May 23 11:44:30 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:44:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Congrats to all especially to Wilson Abigaba I second Ginger Paque as the non-voting chair. Regards Mwendwa Kivuva On 23 May 2013 17:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs > clarification in the Charter. > I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used the > Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? > The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable to > me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of having an > uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and including someone with > no responsibility to vote who can facilitate the process itself. > Deirdre > > > On 23 May 2013 10:30, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >> >> > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote >> > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if >> > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) >> >> More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where >> it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members >> picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: >> >> The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of >> a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven >> members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. >> >> Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the >> “members selected at random”: >> >> A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected >> at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. >> >> Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: >> >> This document describes a method for making random selections in such >> a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. >> As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF >> Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers >> is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. >> >> Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of >> how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is >> pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the >> Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a >> participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are >> selected randomly, for a total of six participants. >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 12:20:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:20:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance > issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? What if the tax treaty turns out to be ineffective, or to have very undesirable side-effects, because its architects fail to take into account dynamic Internet-based phenomena which are well known among some Internet oriented research communities, but not among the people who negotiate tax treaties? 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 Thu May 23 12:34:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:04:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> Movement of money is movement of money .. which can and will be tracked by tax authorities, and you notice that apple is taking at least some heat as are the big Indian outsourcing companies. The taxes are not on the Internet but at a basic level deal with transfer pricing and related concepts. Yes civil society should certainly coordinate their inputs .. But no it still isn't quite related to igov. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 21:50, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance >> issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? > > What if the tax treaty turns out to be ineffective, or to have very > undesirable side-effects, because its architects fail to take into > account dynamic Internet-based phenomena which are well known among > some Internet oriented research communities, but not among the people > who negotiate tax treaties? > > 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 soekpe at gmail.com Thu May 23 14:08:27 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:08:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service In-Reply-To: References: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> <02d801ce577f$68c754c0$3a55fe40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi! Suresh, Greetings from Calabar, Nigeria. I thought Michael pointed at something. Business people campaigning as a result of corporate responsibility to protect human rights of Consumers [Facebook]. I also try to deduct from Michael's statement , and wish to believe that some are sponsored to be under Civil Society to protect business. And your reflecting uncivilized CS, maybe more elaboration. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 23, 2013 7:42 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > not really, though uncivil society might regard it so > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 12:02, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Hmmm… More do as I say, not as I do?**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:41 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Cc:* > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's > Terms of Service**** > > ** ** > > Joining Facebook, to work towards human rights**** > > ** ** > > > http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/ > > And, to answer your question, "no"**** > > > --srs (iPad)**** > > > On 23-May-2013, at 10:53, "michael gurstein" wrote:** > ** > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t > erms-service# > > A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with > more > traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? > > M**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Thu May 23 14:30:52 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:30:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear All, I think, it will be better to go for Charter amendment as to have clarity on this causes. Since the two option had be use before now. Then lets decide on one option or use bottom options as a result of the "hat on"[Coordinators]. Thank you Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 23, 2013 4:45 PM, "Kivuva" wrote: > Congrats to all especially to Wilson Abigaba > I second Ginger Paque as the non-voting chair. > > Regards > Mwendwa Kivuva > > > > On 23 May 2013 17:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs >> clarification in the Charter. >> I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used the >> Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? >> The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable to >> me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of having an >> uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and including someone with >> no responsibility to vote who can facilitate the process itself. >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >>> >>> > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote >>> > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if >>> > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) >>> >>> More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where >>> it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members >>> picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: >>> >>> The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of >>> a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven >>> members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. >>> >>> Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the >>> “members selected at random”: >>> >>> A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected >>> at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. >>> >>> Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: >>> >>> This document describes a method for making random selections in such >>> a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. >>> As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF >>> Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers >>> is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. >>> >>> Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of >>> how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is >>> pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the >>> Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a >>> participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are >>> selected randomly, for a total of six participants. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Thu May 23 15:03:29 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:03:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update In-Reply-To: References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2782D56C-6DEB-4D12-B236-BB327882AD0D@gmail.com> Normally (parliamentary practice) the president is elected from inside the board when is a member of the board with the same range of other members. In this situation, the vote of chairman tie when a draw situation occurs. So president does not vote UNLESS a draw occur. If the president is elected from outside then normally is a non voting member and acts as an executive director to the board is an executive more than a director or member of the board. I suggest to select the chair from the 5 members, with non voting rights, unless a draw situation occurs. Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 23/05/2013, a las 13:30, Sonigitu Ekpe escribió: > Dear All, > > I think, it will be better to go for Charter amendment as to have clarity on this causes. > > Since the two option had be use before now. > > Then lets decide on one option or use bottom options as a result of the "hat on"[Coordinators]. > > Thank you > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On May 23, 2013 4:45 PM, "Kivuva" wrote: >> Congrats to all especially to Wilson Abigaba >> I second Ginger Paque as the non-voting chair. >> >> Regards >> Mwendwa Kivuva >> >> >> >> On 23 May 2013 17:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs clarification in the Charter. >>> I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? >>> The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of having an uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and including someone with no responsibility to vote who can facilitate the process itself. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >>>> >>>> > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote >>>> > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if >>>> > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) >>>> >>>> More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where >>>> it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members >>>> picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: >>>> >>>> The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of >>>> a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven >>>> members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. >>>> >>>> Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the >>>> “members selected at random”: >>>> >>>> A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected >>>> at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. >>>> >>>> Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: >>>> >>>> This document describes a method for making random selections in such >>>> a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. >>>> As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF >>>> Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers >>>> is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. >>>> >>>> Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of >>>> how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is >>>> pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the >>>> Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a >>>> participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are >>>> selected randomly, for a total of six participants. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Thu May 23 16:00:32 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:00:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> Message-ID: Internet Governance came on board as a result of transactions that had enabled various activities to be done within the Ecosystems. This is a new World within the Universe and much more is yet to show up as a result of Its utilization. If we are less concern, what do you want to govern on the Internet? Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 23, 2013 5:34 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Movement of money is movement of money .. which can and will be tracked by > tax authorities, and you notice that apple is taking at least some heat as > are the big Indian outsourcing companies. > > The taxes are not on the Internet but at a basic level deal with transfer > pricing and related concepts. > > Yes civil society should certainly coordinate their inputs .. But no it > still isn't quite related to igov. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-May-2013, at 21:50, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance > >> issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? > > > > What if the tax treaty turns out to be ineffective, or to have very > > undesirable side-effects, because its architects fail to take into > > account dynamic Internet-based phenomena which are well known among > > some Internet oriented research communities, but not among the people > > who negotiate tax treaties? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Thu May 23 16:00:54 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:00:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] simple suggestion In-Reply-To: <2782D56C-6DEB-4D12-B236-BB327882AD0D@gmail.com> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> <2782D56C-6DEB-4D12-B236-BB327882AD0D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130523160054.56336qewjpac4hh2@www.ciencitec.com> (English) Distinguished members: Thanks for being on the payroll of this team, I see absurd to be wasting time looking at the issue of choosing between only 5 members. Is it necessary to complicate something so simple?. Why not, it's the community that you can select or who is older, is president of this section. Thanks and sorry. (Spanish) Distinguidos miembros: Gracias por estar en la nomina de este equipo, lo veo absurdo estar perdiendo el tiempo en ver el asunto de elegir entre tan solo 5 miembros. ¿Es necesario complicarnos en algo tan simple?. Porque no, que sea la comunidad la que eliga o quien tiene mayor edad, sea el presidente de esta seccion. Gracias y disculpen. José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Carlos Vera Quintana escribió: > Normally (parliamentary practice) the president is elected from > inside the board when is a member of the board with the same range > of other members. In this situation, the vote of chairman tie when a > draw situation occurs. So president does not vote UNLESS a draw occur. > > If the president is elected from outside then normally is a non > voting member and acts as an executive director to the board is an > executive more than a director or member of the board. > > I suggest to select the chair from the 5 members, with non voting > rights, unless a draw situation occurs. > > > > Carlos Vera > 0988141143 > > El 23/05/2013, a las 13:30, Sonigitu Ekpe escribió: > >> Dear All, >> >> I think, it will be better to go for Charter amendment as to have >> clarity on this causes. >> >> Since the two option had be use before now. >> >> Then lets decide on one option or use bottom options as a result of >> the "hat on"[Coordinators]. >> >> Thank you >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> +234 8027510179 >> >> On May 23, 2013 4:45 PM, "Kivuva" wrote: >>> Congrats to all especially to Wilson Abigaba >>> I second Ginger Paque as the non-voting chair. >>> >>> Regards >>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23 May 2013 17:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs >>>> clarification in the Charter. >>>> I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was >>>> used the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? >>>> The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels >>>> uncomfortable to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the >>>> obvious logic of having an uneven number of members to avoid a >>>> split vote, and including someone with no responsibility to vote >>>> who can facilitate the process itself. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 May 2013 10:30, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Usually in parliamentary practice, the non voting status means vote >>>>> > ONLY when there is not a majority in the board (i.e if and only if >>>>> > there is a draw in the board the chair vote to tie) >>>>> >>>>> More relevant to the question at hand is the language in RFC 1601 where >>>>> it is clear that the “non-voting chair” was in addition to the “members >>>>> picked at random from a pool of volunteers”, not one of them: >>>>> >>>>> The IETF nomination committee is formed every year and consists of >>>>> a non-voting chair designated by the Internet Society and seven >>>>> members picked at random from a pool of volunteers. >>>>> >>>>> Yet more significantly, our Charter says about the selection of the >>>>> “members selected at random”: >>>>> >>>>> A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected >>>>> at random according to the process documented in RFC3797. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a copy of the abstract of RFC 3797: >>>>> >>>>> This document describes a method for making random selections in such >>>>> a way that the unbiased nature of the choice is publicly verifiable. >>>>> As an example, the selection of the voting members of the IETF >>>>> Nominations Committee (NomCom) from the pool of eligible volunteers >>>>> is used. Similar techniques would be applicable to other cases. >>>>> >>>>> Having reviewed all this, I'm coming to the conclusion that in view of >>>>> how the word “members” is used in RFC 1601 and in RFC 3797, it is >>>>> pretty clear that the practice which the drafters of this part of the >>>>> Charter were intending to establish is that the “non-voting chair” is a >>>>> participant in the NomCom in addition to the five “members” who are >>>>> selected randomly, for a total of six participants. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________ >>> Mwendwa Kivuva >>> twitter.com/lordmwesh >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 20:39:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:09:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service In-Reply-To: References: <02b701ce5775$b1eecb10$15cc6130$@gmail.com> <5A008153-5F56-4A7A-89EB-A5F5F4E1DE44@hserus.net> <02d801ce577f$68c754c0$3a55fe40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I simply say that making blanket statements about corporations being evil and selfish entities does not do much for multistakeholderism, and moreover is uncivil, in the sense of lacking civility (politeness). It is also not an ideal characteristic for civil society to have as it is not aligned to multistakeholderism, but rather to alienate specific stakeholder groups, so I suppose that metaphor fits to some extent. --srs (iPad) On 23-May-2013, at 23:38, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Hi! Suresh, > > Greetings from Calabar, Nigeria. > > I thought Michael pointed at something. > > Business people campaigning as a result of corporate responsibility to protect human rights of Consumers [Facebook]. > > I also try to deduct from Michael's statement , and wish to believe that some are sponsored to be under Civil > Society to protect business. > > And your reflecting uncivilized CS, maybe more elaboration. > > Thank you. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On May 23, 2013 7:42 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> not really, though uncivil society might regard it so >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-May-2013, at 12:02, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Hmmm… More do as I say, not as I do? >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:41 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >>> Cc: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People's Terms of Service >>> >>> >>> >>> Joining Facebook, to work towards human rights >>> >>> >>> >>> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/facebook-joins-gni-online-privacy-and-freedom-group/ >>> >>> And, to answer your question, "no" >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 23-May-2013, at 10:53, "michael gurstein" wrote: >>> >>> http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-t >>> erms-service# >>> >>> A basis for a broader CS initiative including in IG (and a linkage with more >>> traditional Consumer/CS concerns)? >>> >>> M >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 23 20:54:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:24:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> Message-ID: Internet governance has a specific meaning, the operation and oversight of specific processes that have an Internet wide impact, and engagement across actors from across stakeholder communities to get perspective, hands on contribution and assistance towards a common set of goals. Yet, there is a basic lack of trust and extensive infighting across communities. --srs (iPad) On 24-May-2013, at 1:30, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Internet Governance came on board as a result of transactions that had enabled various activities to be done within the Ecosystems. > > This is a new World within the Universe and much more is yet to show up as a result of Its utilization. > > If we are less concern, what do you want to govern on the Internet? > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On May 23, 2013 5:34 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> Movement of money is movement of money .. which can and will be tracked by tax authorities, and you notice that apple is taking at least some heat as are the big Indian outsourcing companies. >> >> The taxes are not on the Internet but at a basic level deal with transfer pricing and related concepts. >> >> Yes civil society should certainly coordinate their inputs .. But no it still isn't quite related to igov. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-May-2013, at 21:50, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance >> >> issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? >> > >> > What if the tax treaty turns out to be ineffective, or to have very >> > undesirable side-effects, because its architects fail to take into >> > account dynamic Internet-based phenomena which are well known among >> > some Internet oriented research communities, but not among the people >> > who negotiate tax treaties? >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > -- >> > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 24 00:26:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:26:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo Message-ID: <070f01ce5836$d9c5cbe0$8d5163a0$@gmail.com> Without having a lot of background I found this rather difficult to follow but interesting as an insight into aspects of Chinese Internet politics, governance and control. Also, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/22/how-social-commerce-tighens-chinas-grip-on-the-internet/ M From: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com [mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Han-Teng Liao Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:36 AM To: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo Dear all, It might be of interest to some of you who is analysing censorship and/or ideological struggles in mainland China. * Zhang Hongliang (張宏良), a leftist commentator advocates to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites such as Sina, Sohu, Biadu, Netease, etc. http://kan.wyzxsd.com/article/elite/2013/05/301838.html For an English partial translation of the article, please read: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/23/well-known-chinese-leftist-advocates-militarized-internet/ * The article was removed and thus censored by Sina blog and Sina Weibo * The article is now in Free Weibo: https://freeweibo.com/weibo/3579021897679484 The questions remain: Can the US authorities ask these major "Chinese" portal sites to do what they want and what Beijing does not want? Is it likely or even possible that all these portal sites make a concerted effort declare not to follow filtering/censorship directives altogether, seeking sympathy/support from Chinese Internet users? Best, han-teng liao [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: · New Files 1 Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 00:36:15 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:06:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo In-Reply-To: <070f01ce5836$d9c5cbe0$8d5163a0$@gmail.com> References: <070f01ce5836$d9c5cbe0$8d5163a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13ed4d285ed.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Any censorship or liberation takes place under government oversight And china is the sort of place where the government and industry, even private industry, are heavily intertwined, with policy decisions and corporate interests linked to an extent that would dwarf what you routinely rail against in the usa --srs (htc one x) On 24 May 2013 9:56:08 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > Without having a lot of background I found this rather difficult to follow > but interesting as an insight into aspects of Chinese Internet politics, > governance and control. > > > > Also, > > > http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/22/how-social-commerce-tighens-chinas-grip-on-the-internet/ > > > > M > > > > From: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com > [mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Han-Teng Liao > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:36 AM > To: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to > "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" > in Free Weibo > Dear all, > > It might be of interest to some of you who is analysing censorship > and/or ideological struggles in mainland China. > > * Zhang Hongliang (張宏良), a leftist commentator advocates to > "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites such as Sina, Sohu, Biadu, > Netease, etc. http://kan.wyzxsd.com/article/elite/2013/05/301838.html For > an English partial translation of the article, please read: > http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/23/well-known-chinese-leftist-advocates-militarized-internet/ > > * The article was removed and thus censored by Sina blog and Sina Weibo > > * The article is now in Free Weibo: > https://freeweibo.com/weibo/3579021897679484 > > The questions remain: Can the US authorities ask these major "Chinese" > portal sites to do what they want and what Beijing does not want? Is it > likely or even possible that all these portal sites make a concerted > effort declare not to follow filtering/censorship directives altogether, > seeking sympathy/support from Chinese Internet users? > > Best, > han-teng liao > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > __._,_.___ > > > > Reply via web post > > > Reply to sender > > > Reply to group > > > Start a New Topic > > > Messages in this topic (1) > > Recent Activity: > · > > New Files 1 > > Visit Your Group > > > Yahoo! Groups > > Switch to: > > Text-Only, > > Daily Digest • > > Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • > > Send us Feedback > . > > > > __,_._,___ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 24 01:03:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:03:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo In-Reply-To: <13ed4d285ed.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <070f01ce5836$d9c5cbe0$8d5163a0$@gmail.com> <13ed4d285ed.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <073701ce583c$1a988bd0$4fc9a370$@gmail.com> Suresh, Your response to my post of what I think is rather neutral information of general use and value is typical of your behaviour and also a good indication of why I and I would assume anyone with any sense would be reluctant to contribute anything substantive to this list. Since you seem not to have anything of any substance to add to the note that I sent, there is IMHO no call or need to respond at all and certainly none to make quite incorrect and personalized comments (I would be interested to see the specific posts where I "rail" against the US or anyone else). M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:36 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; brics-internet-research at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo Any censorship or liberation takes place under government oversight And china is the sort of place where the government and industry, even private industry, are heavily intertwined, with policy decisions and corporate interests linked to an extent that would dwarf what you routinely rail against in the usa --srs (htc one x) On 24 May 2013 9:56:08 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: Without having a lot of background I found this rather difficult to follow but interesting as an insight into aspects of Chinese Internet politics, governance and control. Also, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/22/how-social-commerce-tighens-chinas-grip-on-the-internet/ M From: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com [mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Han-Teng Liao Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:36 AM To: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo Dear all, It might be of interest to some of you who is analysing censorship and/or ideological struggles in mainland China. * Zhang Hongliang (張宏良), a leftist commentator advocates to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites such as Sina, Sohu, Biadu, Netease, etc. http://kan.wyzxsd.com/article/elite/2013/05/301838.html For an English partial translation of the article, please read: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/23/well-known-chinese-leftist-advocates-militarized-internet/ * The article was removed and thus censored by Sina blog and Sina Weibo * The article is now in Free Weibo: https://freeweibo.com/weibo/3579021897679484 The questions remain: Can the US authorities ask these major "Chinese" portal sites to do what they want and what Beijing does not want? Is it likely or even possible that all these portal sites make a concerted effort declare not to follow filtering/censorship directives altogether, seeking sympathy/support from Chinese Internet users? Best, han-teng liao [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: · New Files 1 Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 01:18:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:48:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" in Free Weibo In-Reply-To: <073701ce583c$1a988bd0$4fc9a370$@gmail.com> References: <070f01ce5836$d9c5cbe0$8d5163a0$@gmail.com> <13ed4d285ed.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <073701ce583c$1a988bd0$4fc9a370$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13ed4f8e490.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It would indeed be hard to add substance to what you say, I do admit. In any case I remain intrigued at the strategic use of quotation marks in the subject of this email Are the portals in question not chinese? Did whichever ideologue (short for either an oblique hemi demi semi official pronouncement as like as not) it was call for something other than nationalization? Analysing the complex interplay between chinese internet providers and their regulatory authorities is certainly fascinating and that was what I was pointing out. And that remains more complex and heavily intertwined than anything you see, and often do criticize --srs (htc one x) On 24 May 2013 10:33:46 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > Suresh, > > > > Your response to my post of what I think is rather neutral information of > general use and value is typical of your behaviour and also a good > indication of why I and I would assume anyone with any sense would be > reluctant to contribute anything substantive to this list. > > > > Since you seem not to have anything of any substance to add to the note > that I sent, there is IMHO no call or need to respond at all and certainly > none to make quite incorrect and personalized comments (I would be > interested to see the specific posts where I "rail" against the US or > anyone else). > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, May > 24, 2013 7:36 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; > brics-internet-research at vancouvercommunity.net > Subject: Re: [governance] [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A > call to "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then > "liberated" in Free Weibo > > > > Any censorship or liberation takes place under government oversight > And china is the sort of place where the government and industry, even > private industry, are heavily intertwined, with policy decisions and > corporate interests linked to an extent that would dwarf what you routinely > rail against in the usa > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 24 May 2013 9:56:08 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Without having a lot of background I found this rather difficult to follow > but interesting as an insight into aspects of Chinese Internet politics, > governance and control. > > > > Also, > > > http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/22/how-social-commerce-tighens-chinas-grip-on-the-internet/ > > > > M > > > > From: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com > [mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Han-Teng Liao > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:36 AM > To: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] Some traces of irony: A call to > "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites is censored and then "liberated" > in Free Weibo > Dear all, > > It might be of interest to some of you who is analysing censorship > and/or ideological struggles in mainland China. > > * Zhang Hongliang (張宏良), a leftist commentator advocates to > "nationalize" major "Chinese" portal sites such as Sina, Sohu, Biadu, > Netease, etc. http://kan.wyzxsd.com/article/elite/2013/05/301838.html For > an English partial translation of the article, please read: > http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/23/well-known-chinese-leftist-advocates-militarized-internet/ > > * The article was removed and thus censored by Sina blog and Sina Weibo > > * The article is now in Free Weibo: > https://freeweibo.com/weibo/3579021897679484 > > The questions remain: Can the US authorities ask these major "Chinese" > portal sites to do what they want and what Beijing does not want? Is it > likely or even possible that all these portal sites make a concerted > effort declare not to follow filtering/censorship directives altogether, > seeking sympathy/support from Chinese Internet users? > > Best, > han-teng liao > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > __._,_.___ > > > > Reply via web post > > > Reply to sender > > > Reply to group > > > Start a New Topic > > > Messages in this topic (1) > > Recent Activity: > · > > New Files 1 > > Visit Your Group > > > Yahoo! Groups > > Switch to: > > Text-Only, > > Daily Digest • > > Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • > > Send us Feedback > . > > > > __,_._,___ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 24 02:51:49 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:51:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> Message-ID: Implying that unspecified process not inclusive? Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 23, 2013 9:00 PM, "Sonigitu Ekpe" wrote: > Internet Governance came on board as a result of transactions that had > enabled various activities to be done within the Ecosystems. > > This is a new World within the Universe and much more is yet to show up as > a result of Its utilization. > > If we are less concern, what do you want to govern on the Internet? > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On May 23, 2013 5:34 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > >> Movement of money is movement of money .. which can and will be tracked >> by tax authorities, and you notice that apple is taking at least some heat >> as are the big Indian outsourcing companies. >> >> The taxes are not on the Internet but at a basic level deal with transfer >> pricing and related concepts. >> >> Yes civil society should certainly coordinate their inputs .. But no it >> still isn't quite related to igov. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-May-2013, at 21:50, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> How is a global / multilateral tax treaty an internet governance >> >> issue, just becuase it involves transfer over the internet? >> > >> > What if the tax treaty turns out to be ineffective, or to have very >> > undesirable side-effects, because its architects fail to take into >> > account dynamic Internet-based phenomena which are well known among >> > some Internet oriented research communities, but not among the people >> > who negotiate tax treaties? >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > -- >> > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri May 24 08:57:23 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:57:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: NomCom process: Charter clarification? (was: NomCom for the Appeals Team: Update) In-Reply-To: <20130523174109.2a475683@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> <5CF4E2A5-0287-41AD-A7B3-19F3852E5168@hserus.net> <20130523023356.59222a9b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523123431.376d3aac@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523163046.3c54a9a1@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523174109.2a475683@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree with the proposed option c I also feel that it would help to resolve the issue amicably if another label could be chosen for the non-voting person - perhaps moderator or facilitator? Deirdre On 23 May 2013 11:41, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I'm reluctant to propose Charter amendments but this issue needs > > clarification in the Charter. > > I agree that it would be good to clarify this. The current language is > too open to conflicting interpretations. > > There are several ways in which this could potentially be clarified, > including: > > (a) The non-voting chair is always chosen from outside the group of > randomly selected NomCom members. > > (b) The non-voting chair is always chosen from within the group of > randomly selected NomCom members. Even if none of them have ever served > on a NomCom before, the coordinators are not allowed to appoint a > non-voting chair from outside the group of random selected NomCom > members. > > (c) The non-voting chair should normally be chosen from outside the > group of randomly selected NomCom members, but in an exceptional > situation the coordinators may appoint one of the randomly selected > NomCom members as non-voting chair, provided that this person agrees > to thereby forsake their voting rights. > > > I believe - open to correction - that the last time a NomCom was used > > the Chair was in fact one of the random selectees? > > What happened was that there was a chair who was not one of the random > selectees and who found it necessary to resign in the middle of the > NomCom's work due to a conflict of interest which emerged at that time. > > After that resignation, one of the randomly selected NomCom members > agreed to take over the role of non-voting chair. I did not participate > in the process that led to that decision (because I also had a conflict > of interests) but I agree that formalities aside, that was a better way > forward than bringing in a new non-voting chair from the outside. > > In view of this experience, I think that rule 'c' is better than 'a'. > Rule 'b' is not a good choice at all IMO, since it is entirely possible > for a random selection to yield five persons without any previous NomCom > experience, and/or without the necessary leadership skills for chairing > a NomCom. > > > The pointing to the Charter of a different group feels uncomfortable > > to me; it would seem preferable to refer to the obvious logic of > > having an uneven number of members to avoid a split vote, and > > including someone with no responsibility to vote who can facilitate > > the process itself. > > Yes, I absolutely agree... I only went digging in the RFCs after it was > challenged whether my understanding of this part of the IGC Charter is > in fact correct. > > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 24 10:09:40 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:09:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Internet governance has a specific meaning, the operation and > oversight of specific processes that have an Internet wide impact, > and engagement across actors from across stakeholder communities to > get perspective, hands on contribution and assistance towards a > common set of goals. The working definition of Internet governance from WGIG, which has also been included in the Tunis Agenda, is significantly broader than the above. the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet Now e-commerce is an important aspect of the use of the Internet, and any tax treaty that impacts on e-commerce, even if only by resulting in some requirements to demonstrate in some cases that the e-commerce is “real” in some sense and not a front for tax evasion, will have some influence on shaping the evolution and use of the Internet. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronym expansion WGIG=Working Group on Internet Governance -- 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 jcurran at istaff.org Fri May 24 12:14:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:14:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On May 19, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about “each in their respective roles and responsibilities.” Milton - This brings up an excellent point... Has there been attempt to elaborate the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in particular, as to what that phrase actually means with respect to governments? I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to all in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some additional aspects which are unique to governments (such as enforcement.) An elaboration of what is meant by "respective roles" may not lead to agreement, but will certainly improve communication of the various perspectives. Thoughts? /John Disclaimer: My views alone. My respective role and responsibility on this list is to ask (when uncertain), answer (when asked), and to listen otherwise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 13:23:32 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:23:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <519FA214.2040506@gmail.com> This is the proximate reason. But it also goes to motive about corporations. MS is useful, but if it is deliberative rather than representative the issue is much wider. It is a strategy of rhetoric to create a strawman and then to push him down, in that, one cannot be presumptively for BigCorporates or against them, it depends. The latter is anathema to pro-corporate (in effect if not intent, consciously or worse still unconsciously!!) views, in the form of Liberatarians or simply neoclassical economics inspired views (the latter cuts across first and third world's). If the balance of taxes between labour and Corporates is not fair, there is NO reason to presume the market is better than institutional or state regulation. Here differences are at first principles and discussions around symptoms will inevitably be at cross purposes. The issue from my side of the fence is, if MS cannot take the power and contextual differentials into account it is problematic (can be overcome, but one would first have to acknowledge the diagnosis of the problem before proceeding). In that case, the state is the form, which does not however explain the poverty of protest on this list in particular regarding the enormous overreach by the US state. Riaz On 2013/05/24 05:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > e-commerce is an important aspect of the use of the Internet, and > any tax treaty that impacts on e-commerce, even if only by resulting > in some requirements to demonstrate in some cases that the e-commerce is > “real” in some sense and not a front for tax evasion, will have some > influence on shaping the evolution and use of the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri May 24 20:35:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 06:05:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <519FA214.2040506@gmail.com> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> <519FA214.2040506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <048EEC41-7AFD-431D-9152-638B90F35FA3@hserus.net> Tis is absolutely nothing related to economic schools of thought. It is more to do with a constant refusal to acknowledge a stakeholder group (corporations) in any but an adversarial light, and a tendency to attribute mens rea to any and every action that they take. --srs (iPad) On 24-May-2013, at 22:53, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > This is the proximate reason. But it also goes to motive about corporations. > > MS is useful, but if it is deliberative rather than representative the issue is much wider. It is a strategy of rhetoric to create a strawman and then to push him down, in that, one cannot be presumptively for BigCorporates or against them, it depends. The latter is anathema to pro-corporate (in effect if not intent, consciously or worse still unconsciously!!) views, in the form of Liberatarians or simply neoclassical economics inspired views (the latter cuts across first and third world's). > > If the balance of taxes between labour and Corporates is not fair, there is NO reason to presume the market is better than institutional or state regulation. Here differences are at first principles and discussions around symptoms will inevitably be at cross purposes. The issue from my side of the fence is, if MS cannot take the power and contextual differentials into account it is problematic (can be overcome, but one would first have to acknowledge the diagnosis of the problem before proceeding). In that case, the state is the form, which does not however explain the poverty of protest on this list in particular regarding the enormous overreach by the US state. > > Riaz > > > On 2013/05/24 05:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> e-commerce is an important aspect of the use of the Internet, and >> any tax treaty that impacts on e-commerce, even if only by resulting >> in some requirements to demonstrate in some cases that the e-commerce is >> “real” in some sense and not a front for tax evasion, will have some >> influence on shaping the evolution and use of the Internet. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 25 02:55:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:55:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [caidp-rpcdi] Future UN Brief : Why We - Especially the West - Need the UN Development System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ae101ce5914$d6d7fbe0$8487f3a0$@gmail.com> Some very wise and humane words from a former senior diplomat (from Singapore) with direct relevance to emerging Internet Governance and Enhanced Cooperation among other areas. M From: caidp-rpcdi-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:caidp-rpcdi-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of V Nath Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:57 AM To: caidp-rpcdi at list.web.net Subject: [caidp-rpcdi] Future UN Brief : Why We - Especially the West - Need the UN Development System Dear Colleagues, The latest brief by the FUNDS / Future UN project ( http://www.FutureUN.org ) may be of interest to some colleagues! Why We - Especially the West - Need the UN Development System Kishore Mahbubani Western countries have created a UN development system that is underfunded and hamstrung by politics. As the relative power of the West declines, these countries should invest more in the UN to ensure global stability. As we move into an era of great convergence, the West must fundamentally rethink its policy that its long-term interests are served by keeping institutions of global governance weak. With only 12 percent of the population of the global village and a declining share of economic and military power, the West's long-term geopolitical interests will switch from trying to preserve its "dominance" to safeguards to protect the West's "minority" positionin a new global configuration of power. Read the latest Future UN Development System (FUNDS) Brief at: http://futureun.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Briefing-4-Mahbubani.pdf Best regards, Vikas Nath Associate Director Future UN Development System (FUNDS) project www.FutureUN.org Follow us at @FutureUN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 25 03:38:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:38:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Call for Papers (Abstracts) Community Informatics and the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) Message-ID: <0b0601ce591a$e9e20a90$bda61fb0$@gmail.com> Please forward as appropriate. ================================================== Call for Papers: Special Issue – Community Informatics and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) The Journal of Community Informatics (http://ci-journal.net) Abstract submissions due June 15, 2013 Full papers due September 1, 2013 Anticipated publication date February 1, 2014 The international peer-reviewed Journal of Community Informatics (http://ci-journal.net/) is a medium for the communication of research of interest to a global network of academics, community informatics practitioners and national and multilateral policy makers. A special issue of the journal will be devoted to examining the relationship between Community Informatics and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Community Informatics (CI) is the study and practice of enabling communities and the grassroots to improve their lives through Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). This special issue will focus on how community-based use of ICTs can contribute to both the achievement of specific MDG targets and the development of the post-2015 global development agenda. The issue is expected to be published in early 2014 and thus provide inputs to ongoing discussions on the finalization of a new global development agenda. Call for papers The field of Community Informatics seeks to explore the potential of ICTs and their applications for social and economic development at the community level. It particularly seeks to ensure that marginalized individuals and communities can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs can provide. Active and meaningful participation by people at the community/grassroots level is arguably one critical element for the successful achievement of the MDGs – and any other development priorities, for that matter. As demonstrated in different parts of the world, ICTs enable the participation of people and give voice to the voiceless. For this special issue, we are inviting original, unpublished research, points of view, case studies, reviews and field notes. All research papers will be double-blind peer-reviewed. Insights and analytical perspectives from practitioners and policy makers in the form of notes from the field or case studies are also encouraged. These will not be peer-reviewed but will be assessed as to their suitability for publication. Expected topics in this special issue include: 1. National and local policies needed to foster synergies between CI and the MDGs 2. Local government, CI and ICTs: how to create a sound ecosystem for development and MDG achievement? 3. Enabling communities to participate in local MDG decision making processes via ICTs 4. CI and access to information and open data related to MDG development priorities 5. CI and local participation strategies to meet MDGs 6. CI and social inclusion of groups targeted in MDGs 7. CI and local MDG related capacity development: can ICTs close or widen the gap? 8. The potential role for CI in the post-2015 global development agenda; 9. Assessing the empirical evidence on the role of community ICTs in the MDGs to date And specifically related to individual MDG targets: 10. Using community-based ICTs to address extreme poverty and hunger 11. CI approaches to achieving universal primary education; 12. CI contributions to the promotion of gender equality and women's empowerment 13. CI influence to in the elimination of child mortality and achievement of maternal health 14. CI approaches to combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 15. CI and environmental sustainability 16. CI as a component of national and regional health information systems 17. CI and Environmental Sustainability 18. CI contributions to developing global MDG partnerships Special Issue Editors: Charles Dhewa – CEO, Knowledge Transfer Africa (Pvt) Ltd, charles at knowledgetransafrica.com / charlesdhewa7 at gmail.com Jude Genilo – Head, Media Studies and Journalism Department, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, jude.genilo at ulab.edu.bd / jgenilo at yahoo.com Raul Zambrano – Cluster Leader, Senior Policy Advisor, ICTD and e-governance, UNDP, raul at undp.org Chris Zielinski – CEO, International Alliance on Information for All, chris at chriszielinski.com Special Issue Assistant Michel Castagné – castagne at alumni.ubc.ca Abstracts should be sent to the Assistant castagne at alumni.ubc.ca no later than June 30, 2013. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JOCI-MDG-issue-CFP-2013-04-27 (2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 25 09:34:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:34:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <20130525153422.54bcfa86@quill.bollow.ch> FYI... it appears that contrary to information that I had previously received, the question of admittance of observers will be decided by ECWG (the Enhanced Cooperation Working Group) itself, hopefully at the beginning of the first meeting. Greetings, Norbert --forwarded message follows------------------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:03:29 +0200 From: "Peter Major" Subject: RE: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Norbert, According to the legal advice I got from the UN in New York, it is up to the Working Group to decide on opening the meeting to observers. I will bring up this issue at the beginning of our first meeting on the 30 May, and hope to obtain a positive outcome. At this point I cannot make any commitments. Keep you informed. Best regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: vendredi 24 mai 2013 11:12 To: Peter Major Cc: Thomas Schneider; IGC Coordinators Subject: Fw: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Mr Major It would be good to have some some information soon... Best regards Norbert Bollow co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:27:15 +0200 Von: Norbert Bollow An: peter.major at ties.itu.int Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org Betreff: Fw: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Mr Major There is no information (yet?) on the CSTD website on how to proceed in regard to observer accreditation, and Jason Munyan has now informed me that he is no longer working in this particular area. Could you please inform me how I should proceed? Best regards Norbert Bollow co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:45:48 +0200 Von: Jason Munyan An: nb at bollow.ch Cc: IGC Coordinators , Thomas Schneider , peter.major at ties.itu.int Betreff: Re: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Hi Norbert, Thanks for your message and interest in participating in the first meeting of the WGEC as an observer. I do not anticipate any issues with your participation in the meeting as an observer. I am copying the WGEC Chair, Peter Major, so that he is also aware. For our records, please correct me if I am wrong, but the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is not in consultative status with ECOSOC and was not accredited to WSIS, correct? We will post additional details regarding the meeting, including how to register, on our Web site (www.unctad.org/cstd) in the near future. Thanks and best regards, Jason Jason W. Munyan United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Palais des Nations, E 7063 | 1211 Geneva 10 | Switzerland phone: +41 22 917 30 18 / fax: +41 22 917 00 52 jason.munyan at unctad.org From: Norbert Bollow To: Jason Munyan Cc: IGC Coordinators , Thomas Schneider Date: 09.04.2013 18:23 Subject: Observer accreditation for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Dear Mr. Munyan As it has been announced that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will be open to observers, I would like to seek observer accreditation as a representative of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (igcaucus.org). How should I proceed? The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a formally chartered international civil society umbrella network, coordinated by two elected co-coordinators, currently Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro of Fiji and myself. Best regards Norbert Bollow -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 11:24:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:24:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] BRCK project by Ushahidi on kickstarter Message-ID: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1776324009/brck-your-backup-generator-for-the-internet for those with a penchant for Internet developments in LDCs, this is worthy of your support....10 days to go, 9k USD left. -- 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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Sat May 25 13:02:07 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 19:02:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Network TAHITI_Use of Internet for terrorist purposes In-Reply-To: <1359707035.7010.YahooMailNeo@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID:  Dear all, Just to spread the information on the Network TAHITI that was created as professional group at LinkedIn on the subject of the use of Internet for terrorist purposes by Dr de Weger, a colleague of mine.  If you are interested in the subject and existing best practices in the field, just join it on LinkedIn (search for network TAHITI) or contact Dr de Weger, here in cc. Best regards, Yuliya MorenetsTaC-Together against Cybercrime International -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 13:01:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 13:01:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google to Fund, Develop Wireless Networks in Emerging Markets Message-ID: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578503350402434918?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y I'm sure some of you will find some fault here, but I have used some of these networks (and devices) and they are useful (and free-mium) and do not send your MAC address/browser info, etc to Google unless of course you are using Gmail/Search/Maps, etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Sat May 25 17:58:48 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 22:58:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google to Fund, Develop Wireless Networks in Emerging Markets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, they will be produce productive support to the emerging market. Hakikur At 18:01 25-05-2013, McTim wrote: >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578503350402434918?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y > >I'm sure some of you will find some fault here, but I have used some >of these networks (and devices) and they are useful (and free-mium) >and do not send your MAC address/browser info, etc to Google unless of >course you are using Gmail/Search/Maps, etc. > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 26 03:15:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 10:15:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats Message-ID: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1 whose central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social equity but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding political solutions rather than relying on technical ones. Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 26 04:32:20 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:32:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com>, at 10:15:31 on Sun, 26 May 2013, michael gurstein writes >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin >dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ > >Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the >underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1 whose >central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social equity >but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding political >solutions rather than relying on technical ones. > >Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. Technocrats are very poor at predicting unintended consequences. That may sound like a truism, but it's often possible for a fresh pair of less rosy-spectacled eyes to spot a drawback that the original team didn't. And the "team" can be quite a big one. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 26 05:21:39 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 10:21:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 12:14:32 on Fri, 24 May 2013, John Curran writes >  This brings up an excellent point...  Has there been attempt to >elaborate   the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in >particular, as to what    that phrase actually means with respect to >governments? > >  I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to >all   in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some >additional aspects    which are unique to governments (such as >enforcement.)  An elaboration    of what is meant by "respective roles" >may not lead to agreement, but will    certainly improve communication >of the various perspectives One distinct possibility is that it means "everyone is expected to their day-job, in so far as it maps into the IG space", although it doesn't exclude others from offering helpful advice. Also, don't forget self-regulatory enforcement, for example of IP Address Policy, by organisations other than Governments. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun May 26 05:59:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:29:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going to be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. There are comparatively very few people with both technical AND policy knowledge, and while the cross fertilization between these two streams happens, it doesn't happen as often as I would wish .. and at least in some sections of civil society's eyes such cross fertilization produces "tainted" people. You know .. suspect corporations of mens rea, suspect people who associate with or work for those corporations as being evil corporate stooges who are only working for their employer's selfish interests etc etc, one false premise built on another till a very shaky pyramid of pure hostility takes shape. --srs (iPad) On 26-May-2013, at 14:02, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com>, at 10:15:31 on Sun, 26 May 2013, michael gurstein writes >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin >> dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ >> >> Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the >> underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1 whose >> central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social equity >> but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding political >> solutions rather than relying on technical ones. >> >> Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. > > Technocrats are very poor at predicting unintended consequences. That may sound like a truism, but it's often possible for a fresh pair of less rosy-spectacled eyes to spot a drawback that the original team didn't. And the "team" can be quite a big one. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sun May 26 06:06:01 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 12:06:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1759241512.296753.1369562760940.open-xchange@oxbagw17> John, The term "in their respective roles" stems from art. 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles which was reiterated in art. 35 Tunis Declaration. There was a special sovereign right for development of public policy accorded to states, not governments. Presumably, democratic states would use democratic (multi-stakeholder) ways and processes to determine public policies, whereas non-democratic states would be sovereign in how they do their policy development, whether we like it if not. In order to come to international understandings, my interpretation is that these sovereign states need to cooperate. If they follow the interpretation of "enhanced cooperation" that is in use in the European Union institutions, then a couple of like minded states could cooperate even if their is no full consensus with all states. So, there was no recognition of international business or international civil society to have a sovereign right in this sphere, although they are invited to contribute in their own roles. Peter On 26.05.2013, at 11:22, "Roland Perry" wrote: In message , at 12:14:32 on Fri, 24 May 2013, John Curran writes > This brings up an excellent point... Has there been attempt to elaborate the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in particular, as to what that phrase actually means with respect to governments? > > I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to all in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some additional aspects which are unique to governments (such as enforcement.) An elaboration of what is meant by "respective roles" may not lead to agreement, but will certainly improve communication of the various perspectives One distinct possibility is that it means "everyone is expected to their day-job, in so far as it maps into the IG space", although it doesn't exclude others from offering helpful advice. Also, don't forget self-regulatory enforcement, for example of IP Address Policy, by organisations other than Governments. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 26 06:05:43 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:05:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging In-Reply-To: <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> References: <0b5901ce56bb$f2930ec0$d7b92c40$@gmail.com> <13ecb23c089.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <519DCA58.9090506@gmail.com> <033401ce5791$3125fa50$9371eef0$@gmail.com> <20130523170401.164f2211@quill.bollow.ch> <20130523153453.GA9741@hserus.net> <20130523182016.7d00481d@quill.bollow.ch> <624923E0-B0EF-46AB-9A53-BEC7BEECAE65@hserus.net> <20130524160940.6caf4032@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130524160940.6caf4032 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 16:09:40 on Fri, 24 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >Now e-commerce is an important aspect of the use of the Internet, and >any tax treaty that impacts on e-commerce, even if only by resulting >in some requirements to demonstrate in some cases that the e-commerce is >“real” in some sense and not a front for tax evasion, will have some >influence on shaping the evolution and use of the Internet. E-commerce allows both tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance happens because we are enabled to buy things, sat in out armchairs by the fire, from different jurisdictions that often have lower [sales] tax rates than at home. It can even take advantage of exceptions placed on import duty for postal items, by customs having a "floor limit" below which they can't be bothered to assess the tax due. Tax avoidance by corporations, when choosing to locate their offices in lower-tax jurisdictions, is easier when e-commerce is involved, but has a long and distinguished history for bricks-and-mortar companies. Both of these effects, however, take place in the full glare of publicity, even if they are becoming less "politically correct" in recent times - partly because of the exposure gained due to the better flow of information on the Internet. Tax evasion is another matter altogether, and involves failing to declare transactions, or mis-declaring them. There's a subset of items bought online (specifically downloads of software and entertainment) which are more susceptible to evasion, but I'd characterise that as more to do with the products than the medium through which they are invoiced. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 26 06:25:05 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:25:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 15:29:34 on Sun, 26 May 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going >to be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of >awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. Indeed, I thought that was already understood. >There are comparatively very few people with both technical AND policy >knowledge, and while the cross fertilization between these two streams >happens, it doesn't happen as often as I would wish .. and at least in >some sections of civil society's eyes such cross fertilization produces >"tainted" people. I like to think I know a little about both fields, having started as an engineer designing computers and networks, then becoming interested in the way the law and policy was struggling to keep up with real life (and all the fun having gone out of computers and networks once they'd become commodity items). As for being "tainted", I'm very sorry to report that recently one prospective client was nervous about my participation in this list, on the grounds that it might demonstrate that I was too much of a "sympathiser". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun May 26 06:48:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:18:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <10F3C1C0-8A8E-4B21-A108-63C72106322E@hserus.net> On 26-May-2013, at 15:55, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 15:29:34 on Sun, 26 May 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going to be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. > > Indeed, I thought that was already understood. This caucus wouldn't be as contentious if that was the case :) > As for being "tainted", I'm very sorry to report that recently one prospective client was nervous about my participation in this list, on the grounds that it might demonstrate that I was too much of a "sympathiser". > I'm sorry too. For two reasons - 1. That the caucus appears to have that sort of a reputation among at least some sections of industry (possibly an earned one, or a completely unfair one, I wouldn't know unless I were them) 2. That your prospective client showed a lack of trust in you, and due diligence beyond "you're subscribed to this caucus" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun May 26 16:54:56 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:54:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Obama's war on leaks undermines investigative journalism - WPost column In-Reply-To: <51A20CD2.6050206@bluewin.ch> References: <51A20CD2.6050206@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <51A276A0.7050806@gmail.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leonard Downie: Obama's war on leaks undermines investigative journalism By Leonard Downie Jr., Published: May 24 Leonard Downie Jr. is a vice president at large of The Washington Post, where he served as executive editor from 1991 to 2008. He is the Weil family professor of journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University and a board member of the nonprofit Investigative Reporters and Editors. For the past five years, beginning with his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama has promised that his government would be the most open and transparent in American history. Recently, while stating that he makes"no apologies" for his Justice Department's investigations into suspected leaks of classified information, the president added that "a free press, free expression and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, helps hold our government accountable and helps our democracy function." Then, in his National Defense University speech Thursday, Obama said he was "troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable." But the Obama administration's steadily escalating war on leaks, the most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration, has disregarded the First Amendment and intimidated a growing number of government sources of information --- most of which would not be classified --- that is vital for journalists to hold leaders accountable. The White House has tightened its control over officials' contacts with the news media, and federal agencies have increasingly denied Freedom of Information Act requests on the grounds of national security or protection of internal deliberations. The secret and far-reaching subpoena and seizure of two months of records for 20 Associated Press phone lines and switchboards --- used by more than 100 AP reporters in three news bureaus and the House of Representatives --- is especially chilling for journalists and their sources. The effort was reportedly part of a Justice Department and federal grand jury investigation of an AP story from May 7, 2012, revealing the CIA's success in penetrating a Yemen-based al-Qaeda group that had developed an "underwear bomb" to detonate aboard U.S.-bound aircraft. At the request of the White House and the CIA, the AP held the story for five days to protect an ongoing intelligence operation. The AP's discussions with government officials were similar to many I participated in with several administrations during my years as executive editor of The Washington Post, when I was weighing how to publish significant stories about national security without causing unnecessary harm. After the AP story appeared, Obama administration officials spoke freely about the operation. But when Republicans accused the administration of leaking classified information to boost the president's counterterrorism resume in an election year, the Justice Department began its wide-ranging investigation to find the story's unnamed sources --- including secretly subpoenaing and seizing the AP's call logs earlier this year. Only after Justice finally notified the news agency of the seizure this month and the controversy exploded did Attorney General Eric Holder say that the AP story resulted from "a very, very serious leak" that "put the American people at risk." But the administration has not explained how. Such investigations are not unusual, especially in national security cases, but they have proliferated in the Obama administration. Six government officials have been prosecuted since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Actfor unauthorized disclosures of classified information, twice as many as in all previous U.S. administrations combined. One case involved a classic whistleblower: a senior executive of the National Security Agency who had told the Baltimore Sun about expensive government waste on digital data-gathering technology. In another, investigators seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen , searched his personal e-mails, tracked his visits to the State Department and traced the timing of his phone conversations with Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser. Kim was charged in 2010 as the suspected source of a Fox News report about North Korean nuclear weapon testing. Perhaps most disturbing, documents related to the secret search warrant for Rosen's phone and e-mail records cited him as a co-conspirator in the espionage case. This appeared to journalists to put Rosen in unprecedented jeopardy for doing his job. Although the president said in his speech Thursday that "journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs," he was nevertheless adamant about pursuing government officials who he said "break the law," presumably by discussing national security matters and other classified information with reporters, even if that scares off officials from becoming whistle-blowers or even having any contact with reporters. In addition to these investigations and others believed to be underway, countless government officials have been subjected to accusatory interviews and lie-detector tests to ferret out leakers. And contacts with journalists have been routinely monitored. Not surprisingly, reporters tell me that more and more administration officials are afraid to talk to them. Decades-old Justice Department guidelines restrict federal subpoenas for reporters or their phone records, saying they should be used only as a last resort in an investigation. Justice officials have contended that this was the case with the Associated Press leak. But while claiming that it first conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed tens of thousands of documents, Justice has not explained why it needed to undertake what appears to be a menacing and unjustified fishing expedition. The Justice guidelines require that "the subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible," that the targeted news organization "shall be given reasonable and timely notice" to negotiate the subpoena with Justice or to fight it in court, and that "the approach in every case must be to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice." Only half a dozen AP journalists reported, wrote and edited the May 7, 2012, story, but "thousands upon thousands of news-gathering calls" by more than 100 AP journalists using newsroom, home and mobile phones are included in the records seized by Justice investigators, AP President Gary B. Pruitt said in an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation." In a letter of protest to Holder, Pruitt said that "these records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know." Without any official justification, such an indiscriminate intrusion into one of the most important American news organizations appears to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate journalists and their sources --- or at least indicates a willingness to tolerate such intimidation as collateral damage of an investigation. "I really don't know what their motive is," Pruitt said on "Face the Nation." But, he added, "I know what the message being sent is: If you talk to the press, we're going to go after you." By secretly serving the subpoena directly on phone companies without notifying the AP, the Justice Department avoided negotiations with the news agency or a court challenge over its scope. This is permitted as an exception to the Justice guidelines if prior notification and negotiations would "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation." But there has been no explanation of what threat might have been posed in this case, when the preservation of the records by the phone companies was never in question and the news leak under investigation had occurred long before. I can remember only one similar incident during my 17 years as executive editor of The Post. In 2008, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller formally apologized to me and the executive editor of the New York Times for the secret seizure four years earlier of the phone records of our foreign correspondents working in Jakarta, Indonesia --- because the Justice guidelines had been violated and no subpoena had been issued. But I recall a number of instances in which other federal investigative requests were successfully negotiated in ways that fully protected our news-gathering independence in accordance with the guidelines. In Thursday's speech, Obama said he has raised the impact of federal leaks investigations on accountability journalism with Holder. The president said the attorney general "agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he'll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review." The president also called on Congress to revive and pass a federal "shield law" --- similar to those in 40 states and the District --- that would increase defenses, including judicial appeals, for journalists who face legal attempts to force them to reveal confidential sources and reporting contacts. It is unclear whether the legislation, which stalled in the last Congress after negotiations with the news media, would have prevented the Justice Department's sneak attack against the AP. Nevertheless, its passage would provide significant new protection for accountability journalism and government whistleblowing. White House support of the legislation had been lukewarm, so the timing and ardor of Obama's new embrace remains suspect, depending on the administration's future actions. I can only speculate about the politics at play here. If 2012 had not been a presidential election year, would Republicans have characterized news reports and Obama administration announcements about successful counterterrorism operations as "leaks" endangering national security? Would the administration have decided that it was necessary to react by aggressively investigating leaks for which there is not yet public evidence that national security was seriously compromised? If not for the 2014 congressional elections, would Republicans now be hypocritically condemning the Justice Department's seizure of phone records in the AP case? Hardly anything seems immune from constitutionally dangerous politicking in a polarized Washington. But that's no excuse for playing games with the First Amendment and the right and responsibility of the news media to keep Americans informed about what their government is doing in their name and for their protection. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration increased government secrecy in a variety of ways that Obama, as candidate and president, vowed to reverse. Soon after taking office, Obama and Holder issued memos and directives instructing government agencies to be more responsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and to make more government information public through Web sites and social media. On the plus side, more government information is now available online, much of it "big data" collected and generated by federal agencies. Some of it is potentially useful for consumers and businesses, such as student loan and grant information, resources for seniors, ways to do business with the government, federal jobs, volunteer opportunities, diet and medical information, assistance for farming and solar energy development, and much more. Some of the data about government spending and regulations also are useful for the news media and accountability reporting. But there's not nearly enough of what journalists and citizens need to hold the government truly accountable --- whether information on national security, government surveillance and immigration policies, or specifics about stimulus spending and officials' travel and other perks. After some initial improvement by the Obama administration in fulfilling FOIA requests, delays and denials are growing again, according to journalists and studies by news organizations. An AP analysis published in March found that "more often than it ever has, [the Obama administration] cited legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material" and "frequently cited the need to protect national security and internal deliberations." Some of the administration's new open-information policies also contain broad and vague exceptions that could be used to hide records crucial to accountability reporting about such subjects as health-care payments, government subsidies, workplace accidents or detentions of terrorism suspects. Every administration I remember has tried to control its message and manage contacts with the media. As a senior editor for more than a quarter-century, I frequently received complaints from administrations of both parties about coverage they considered unfavorable, along with occasional and mostly empty threats to cut off access. Journalists who covered the George W. Bush administration said they encountered arrogant attitudes toward the press but were usually able to engage knowledgeable officials in productive dialogue. But reporters covering the Obama administration say more and more officials will no longer talk at all and refer them to uncommunicative or even hostile and bullying press aides. "The White House doesn't want anyone leaking," said one senior Washington correspondent who, like others, described a tight, difficult-to-penetrate inner circle that controls the administration's decisions and micromanages its message. "There are few windows on decision-making and governing philosophy. There is a perception that Obama himself has little regard for the news media." Continuing what worked so successfully during two presidential election campaigns, Obama and his administration have instead engaged citizens directly through social media, friendly bloggers, radio and video. It amounts to the White House reporting on itself, presenting an appearance of greater openness while avoiding penetrating questions from journalists who have the knowledge and experience to do meaningful accountability reporting. The administration's media manipulation extends even to photography: Professional photojournalists are banned from many White House events and presidential activities; only approved images of Obama taken by a White House photographer are supplied to the news media. Most Americans may not care much about the Obama administration's openness to the news media or the potential damage to the First Amendment and government accountability resulting from its aggressive war on leaks. But as the administration copes with second-term governing challenges, real national security threats and darkening clouds of scandal , its credibility will become increasingly important to the president's legacy. It is not too late for Obama's actions to match his rhetoric. ** Read more from Outlook , friend us on Facebook , and follow us on Twitter . © The Washington Post Company -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 17:51:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 03:21:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Obama's war on leaks undermines investigative journalism - WPost column In-Reply-To: <51A276A0.7050806@gmail.com> References: <51A20CD2.6050206@bluewin.ch> <51A276A0.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A283F8.2080706@itforchange.net> Somewhat tangentially, the following para in this news item struck me as a good example of what we at IT for Change call as anti-institutional 'openness'. Such a kind of 'openness' is promoted by the powerful because it is so much easier to control and manipulate than institutions with countervailing power (in this case, the press). "Continuing what worked so successfully during two presidential election campaigns, Obama and his administration have instead engaged citizens directly through social media, friendly bloggers, radio and video. It amounts to the White House reporting on itself, presenting an appearance of greater openness while avoiding penetrating questions from journalists who have the knowledge and experience to do meaningful accountability reporting. The administration’s media manipulation extends even to photography: Professional photojournalists are banned from many White House events and presidential activities; only approved images of Obama taken by a White House photographer are supplied to the news media." A certain kind of multistakeholderism as 'openness' (does everyone not just love that word!) is similarily promoted against institutional democracy by the dominant forces in global IG, and civil society has become the main 'carrier' of this political strategy and weapon of 'openness' for the dominant powers. parminder On Monday 27 May 2013 02:24 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Leonard Downie: Obama’s war on leaks undermines investigative journalism > > > By Leonard Downie Jr., Published: May 24 > > Leonard Downie Jr. is a vice president at large of The Washington > Post, where he served as executive editor from 1991 to 2008. He is the > Weil family professor of journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of > Journalism at Arizona State University and a board member of the > nonprofit Investigative Reporters and Editors. > > For the past five years, beginning with his first presidential > campaign, Barack Obama has promised that his government would be the > most open and transparent in American history. Recently, while stating > that he makes“no apologies” > > for his Justice Department’s investigations into suspected leaks of > classified information, the president added that “a free press, free > expression and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, > helps hold our government accountable and helps our democracy > function.” Then, in his National Defense University speech Thursday, > Obama said > > he was “troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill > the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.” > > But the Obama administration’s steadily escalating war on leaks, the > most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration, has > disregarded the First Amendment and intimidated a growing number of > government sources of information — most of which would not be > classified — that is vital for journalists to hold leaders > accountable. The White House has tightened its control over officials’ > contacts with the news media, and federal agencies have increasingly > denied Freedom of Information Act requests > > on the grounds of national security or protection of internal > deliberations. > > The secret and far-reaching subpoena and seizure of two months of > records for 20 Associated Press phone lines > > and switchboards — used by more than 100 AP reporters in three news > bureaus and the House of Representatives — is especially chilling for > journalists and their sources. The effort was reportedly part of a > Justice Department and federal grand jury investigation of an AP story > from May 7, 2012, revealing the CIA’s success in penetrating a > Yemen-based al-Qaeda group that had developed an “underwear bomb” > > to detonate aboard U.S.-bound aircraft. > > At the request of the White House and the CIA, the AP held the story > for five days to protect an ongoing intelligence operation. The AP’s > discussions with government officials were similar to many I > participated in with several administrations during my years as > executive editor of The Washington Post, when I was weighing how to > publish significant stories about national security without causing > unnecessary harm. > > After the AP story appeared, Obama administration officials spoke > freely about the operation. But when Republicans accused the > administration of leaking classified information to boost the > president’s counterterrorism resume in an election year, the Justice > Department began its wide-ranging investigation to find the story’s > unnamed sources — including secretly subpoenaing and seizing the AP’s > call logs earlier this year. Only after Justice finally notified the > news agency of the seizure this month and the controversy exploded did > Attorney General Eric Holder say that the AP story resulted from “a > very, very serious leak” > > that “put the American people at risk.” But the administration has not > explained how. > > Such investigations are not unusual, especially in national security > cases, but they have proliferated in the Obama administration. Six > government officials have been prosecuted since 2009 under the 1917 > Espionage Actfor unauthorized disclosures of classified information, > twice as many as in all previous U.S. administrations combined. One > case involved a classic whistleblower: a senior executive of the > National Security Agency who had told the Baltimore Sun about > expensive government waste on digital data-gathering technology. > > In another, investigators seized the phone records of Fox News > reporter James Rosen > , > searched his personal e-mails, tracked his visits to the State > Department and traced the timing of his phone conversations with > Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser. Kim was > charged in 2010 as the suspected source of a Fox News report about > North Korean nuclear weapon testing. Perhaps most disturbing, > documents related to the secret search warrant for Rosen’s phone and > e-mail records cited him as a co-conspirator in the espionage case. > > This appeared to journalists to put Rosen in unprecedented jeopardy > for doing his job. Although the president said in his speech Thursday > that “journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs,” > he was nevertheless adamant about pursuing government officials who he > said “break the law,” presumably by discussing national security > matters and other classified information with reporters, even if that > scares off officials from becoming whistle-blowers or even having any > contact with reporters. > > In addition to these investigations and others believed to be > underway, countless government officials have been subjected to > accusatory interviews and lie-detector tests to ferret out leakers. > And contacts with journalists have been routinely monitored. Not > surprisingly, reporters tell me that more and more administration > officials are afraid to talk to them. > > Decades-old Justice Department guidelines restrict federal subpoenas > for reporters or their phone records, saying they should be used only > as a last resort in an investigation. Justice officials have contended > that this was the case with the Associated Press leak. But while > claiming that it first conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed > tens of thousands of documents, Justice has not explained why it > needed to undertake what appears to be a menacing and unjustified > fishing expedition. > > The Justice guidelines > > require that “the subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible,” > that the targeted news organization “shall be given reasonable and > timely notice” to negotiate the subpoena with Justice or to fight it > in court, and that “the approach in every case must be to strike the > proper balance between the public’s interest in the free dissemination > of ideas and information and the public’s interest in effective law > enforcement and the fair administration of justice.” > > Only half a dozen AP journalists reported, wrote and edited the May 7, > 2012, story, but “thousands upon thousands of news-gathering calls” by > more than 100 AP journalists using newsroom, home and mobile phones > are included in the records seized by Justice investigators, AP > President Gary B. Pruitt said in an interview > > with CBS’s “Face the Nation.” In a letter of protest > > to Holder, Pruitt said that “these records potentially reveal > communications with confidential sources across all of the > newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month > period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and > disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the > government has no conceivable right to know.” > > Without any official justification, such an indiscriminate intrusion > into one of the most important American news organizations appears to > be a deliberate attempt to intimidate journalists and their sources — > or at least indicates a willingness to tolerate such intimidation as > collateral damage of an investigation. > > “I really don’t know what their motive is,” Pruitt said on “Face the > Nation.” But, he added, “I know what the message being sent is: If you > talk to the press, we’re going to go after you.” > > By secretly serving the subpoena directly on phone companies without > notifying the AP, the Justice Department avoided negotiations with the > news agency or a court challenge over its scope. This is permitted as > an exception to the Justice guidelines if prior notification and > negotiations would “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the > investigation.” But there has been no explanation of what threat might > have been posed in this case, when the preservation of the records by > the phone companies was never in question and the news leak under > investigation had occurred long before. > > I can remember only one similar incident during my 17 years as > executive editor of The Post. In 2008, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller > formally apologized > > to me and the executive editor of the New York Times for the secret > seizure four years earlier of the phone records of our foreign > correspondents working in Jakarta, Indonesia — because the Justice > guidelines had been violated and no subpoena had been issued. But I > recall a number of instances in which other federal investigative > requests were successfully negotiated in ways that fully protected our > news-gathering independence in accordance with the guidelines. > > In Thursday’s speech, Obama said he has raised the impact of federal > leaks investigations on accountability journalism with Holder. The > president said the attorney general “agreed to review existing > Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve > reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear > their concerns as part of that review.” > > The president also called on Congress to revive and pass a federal > “shield law” > > — similar to those in 40 states and the District — that would increase > defenses, including judicial appeals, for journalists who face legal > attempts to force them to reveal confidential sources and reporting > contacts. It is unclear whether the legislation, which stalled in the > last Congress after negotiations with the news media, would have > prevented the Justice Department’s sneak attack against the AP. > Nevertheless, its passage would provide significant new protection for > accountability journalism and government whistleblowing. White House > support of the legislation had been lukewarm, so the timing and ardor > of Obama’s new embrace remains suspect, depending on the > administration’s future actions. > > I can only speculate about the politics at play here. If 2012 had not > been a presidential election year, would Republicans have > characterized news reports and Obama administration announcements > about successful counterterrorism operations as “leaks” endangering > national security? Would the administration have decided that it was > necessary to react by aggressively investigating leaks for which there > is not yet public evidence that national security was seriously > compromised? If not for the 2014 congressional elections, would > Republicans now be hypocritically condemning the Justice Department’s > seizure of phone records in the AP case? > > Hardly anything seems immune from constitutionally dangerous > politicking in a polarized Washington. But that’s no excuse for > playing games with the First Amendment and the right and > responsibility of the news media to keep Americans informed about what > their government is doing in their name and for their protection. > > After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration > increased government secrecy in a variety of ways that Obama, as > candidate and president, vowed to reverse. Soon after taking office, > Obama and Holder issued memos and directives > > instructing government agencies to be more responsive to Freedom of > Information Act (FOIA) requests and to make more government > information public through Web sites and social media. > > On the plus side, more government information is now available online, > much of it “big data” collected and generated by federal agencies. > Some of it is potentially useful for consumers and businesses, such as > student loan and grant information, resources for seniors, ways to do > business with the government, federal jobs, volunteer opportunities, > diet and medical information, assistance for farming and solar energy > development, and much more. Some of the data about government spending > and regulations also are useful for the news media and accountability > reporting. > > But there’s not nearly enough of what journalists and citizens need to > hold the government truly accountable — whether information on > national security, government surveillance and immigration policies, > or specifics about stimulus spending and officials’ travel and other > perks. > > After some initial improvement by the Obama administration in > fulfilling FOIA requests, delays and denials are growing again, > according to journalists and studies by news organizations. An AP > analysis > > published in March found that “more often than it ever has, [the Obama > administration] cited legal exceptions to censor or withhold the > material” and “frequently cited the need to protect national security > and internal deliberations.” Some of the administration’s new > open-information policies also contain broad and vague exceptions that > could be used to hide records crucial to accountability reporting > about such subjects as health-care payments, government subsidies, > workplace accidents or detentions of terrorism suspects. > > Every administration I remember has tried to control its message and > manage contacts with the media. As a senior editor for more than a > quarter-century, I frequently received complaints from administrations > of both parties about coverage they considered unfavorable, along with > occasional and mostly empty threats to cut off access. Journalists who > covered the George W. Bush administration said they encountered > arrogant attitudes toward the press but were usually able to engage > knowledgeable officials in productive dialogue. > > But reporters covering the Obama administration say more and more > officials will no longer talk at all and refer them to uncommunicative > or even hostile and bullying press aides. “The White House doesn’t > want anyone leaking,” said one senior Washington correspondent who, > like others, described a tight, difficult-to-penetrate inner circle > that controls the administration’s decisions and micromanages its > message. “There are few windows on decision-making and governing > philosophy. There is a perception that Obama himself has little regard > for the news media.” > > Continuing what worked so successfully during two presidential > election campaigns, Obama and his administration have instead engaged > citizens directly through social media, friendly bloggers, radio and > video. It amounts to the White House reporting on itself, presenting > an appearance of greater openness while avoiding penetrating questions > from journalists who have the knowledge and experience to do > meaningful accountability reporting. The administration’s media > manipulation extends even to photography: Professional > photojournalists are banned from many White House events and > presidential activities; only approved images of Obama taken by a > White House photographer are supplied to the news media. > > Most Americans may not care much about the Obama administration’s > openness to the news media or the potential damage to the First > Amendment and government accountability resulting from its aggressive > war on leaks. But as the administration copes with second-term > governing challenges, real national security threats and darkening > clouds of scandal > , > its credibility will become increasingly important to the president’s > legacy. It is not too late for Obama’s actions to match his rhetoric. > > ** > > Read more from Outlook , > friend us on Facebook , and > follow us on Twitter . > > © The Washington Post Company > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 23:44:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:44:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Obama's war on leaks undermines investigative journalism - WPost column In-Reply-To: <51A283F8.2080706@itforchange.net> References: <51A20CD2.6050206@bluewin.ch> <51A276A0.7050806@gmail.com> <51A283F8.2080706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:51 PM, parminder wrote: > > A certain kind of multistakeholderism as 'openness' (does everyone not just > love that word!) is similarily promoted against institutional democracy by > the dominant forces in global IG, and civil society has become the main > 'carrier' of this political strategy and weapon of 'openness' for the > dominant powers. sounds to me like you are actually saying that CS should NOT have a seat at the table! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 00:03:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:33:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Obama's war on leaks undermines investigative journalism - WPost column In-Reply-To: References: <51A20CD2.6050206@bluewin.ch> <51A276A0.7050806@gmail.com> <51A283F8.2080706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13ee427845d.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Not really. Just that part of civil society (the vast majority, as it happens) that disagrees with a particular political world view, I guess. --srs (htc one x) On 27 May 2013 9:14:59 AM McTim wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:51 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > A certain kind of multistakeholderism as 'openness' (does everyone not just > > love that word!) is similarily promoted against institutional democracy by > > the dominant forces in global IG, and civil society has become the main > > 'carrier' of this political strategy and weapon of 'openness' for the > > dominant powers. > > > sounds to me like you are actually saying that CS should NOT have a > seat at the table! > > > -- > 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 nashton at consensus.pro Mon May 27 01:45:01 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:45:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1. As one of those people with a practical and a policy background, I can tell you how infrequent it is to come across anyone (from companies, governments or civil society) who has commercial or practical expertise in the areas they are a policy advocate for. It is a great shame and a direct consequence is bad policy or spreading of misinformation. And yes, I've experience plenty of the prejudices of the latter part of your message. I understand people wanting to 'trust, but verify' as it were. I don't understand the unvarnished bigotry and prejudice (which some of you may remember directed at me by some a few months ago). Prejudice applied to groups is a generalisation - not good, but understandable to some extent. Prejudice applied to individuals is just wrong - and harmful to all involved. On 26 May 2013 12:00, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going to > be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of > awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. > > There are comparatively very few people with both technical AND policy > knowledge, and while the cross fertilization between these two streams > happens, it doesn't happen as often as I would wish .. and at least in some > sections of civil society's eyes such cross fertilization produces > "tainted" people. > > You know .. suspect corporations of mens rea, suspect people who associate > with or work for those corporations as being evil corporate stooges who are > only working for their employer's selfish interests etc etc, one false > premise built on another till a very shaky pyramid of pure hostility takes > shape. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 26-May-2013, at 14:02, Roland Perry > wrote: > > > In message <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com>, at 10:15:31 on > Sun, 26 May 2013, michael gurstein writes > >> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin > >> dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ > >> > >> Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the > >> underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1whose > >> central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social > equity > >> but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding > political > >> solutions rather than relying on technical ones. > >> > >> Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. > > > > Technocrats are very poor at predicting unintended consequences. That > may sound like a truism, but it's often possible for a fresh pair of less > rosy-spectacled eyes to spot a drawback that the original team didn't. And > the "team" can be quite a big one. > > -- > > Roland Perry > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 02:12:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:42:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Nick, there is absolutely no way to "understand" bigotry and prejudice. It's characteristics and symptoms are known, one of which is to attempt to segregate and exclude, as a class, the targets of their prejudice,from being part of be same community. Now, coming back to the repeated attempts to deny the legitimacy of and/or marginalize industry and the technical community, your email helps me see them in a wholly new light rather than mere petty politicking and ideological cant, par for the course and so on. It makes me absolutely not regret registering my complete rejection of such behavior. thanks --srs (iPad) On 27-May-2013, at 11:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > +1. As one of those people with a practical and a policy background, I can tell you how infrequent it is to come across anyone (from companies, governments or civil society) who has commercial or practical expertise in the areas they are a policy advocate for. It is a great shame and a direct consequence is bad policy or spreading of misinformation. > > And yes, I've experience plenty of the prejudices of the latter part of your message. I understand people wanting to 'trust, but verify' as it were. I don't understand the unvarnished bigotry and prejudice (which some of you may remember directed at me by some a few months ago). Prejudice applied to groups is a generalisation - not good, but understandable to some extent. Prejudice applied to individuals is just wrong - and harmful to all involved. > > On 26 May 2013 12:00, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going to be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. >> >> There are comparatively very few people with both technical AND policy knowledge, and while the cross fertilization between these two streams happens, it doesn't happen as often as I would wish .. and at least in some sections of civil society's eyes such cross fertilization produces "tainted" people. >> >> You know .. suspect corporations of mens rea, suspect people who associate with or work for those corporations as being evil corporate stooges who are only working for their employer's selfish interests etc etc, one false premise built on another till a very shaky pyramid of pure hostility takes shape. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 26-May-2013, at 14:02, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> > In message <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com>, at 10:15:31 on Sun, 26 May 2013, michael gurstein writes >> >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin >> >> dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ >> >> >> >> Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the >> >> underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1 whose >> >> central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social equity >> >> but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding political >> >> solutions rather than relying on technical ones. >> >> >> >> Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. >> > >> > Technocrats are very poor at predicting unintended consequences. That may sound like a truism, but it's often possible for a fresh pair of less rosy-spectacled eyes to spot a drawback that the original team didn't. And the "team" can be quite a big one. >> > -- >> > Roland Perry >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 27 02:23:35 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:23:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: There are plenty of people - from all social groups - working in a policy environment who will do anything to win because it is to their financial or other interest (and in my view, there are such people throughout all communities in IG policy just as they exist in every other policy area. In the end, self-justificatory righteousness by civil society can be just as harmful as industry advocacy that is designed only to benefit a company or a sector without regard for broader impacts. My 0.02 On 27 May 2013 08:12, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Nick, there is absolutely no way to "understand" bigotry and prejudice. > It's characteristics and symptoms are known, one of which is to attempt to > segregate and exclude, as a class, the targets of their prejudice,from > being part of be same community. > > Now, coming back to the repeated attempts to deny the legitimacy of and/or > marginalize industry and the technical community, your email helps me see > them in a wholly new light rather than mere petty politicking and > ideological cant, par for the course and so on. It makes me absolutely not > regret registering my complete rejection of such behavior. > > thanks > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-May-2013, at 11:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > +1. As one of those people with a practical and a policy background, I can > tell you how infrequent it is to come across anyone (from companies, > governments or civil society) who has commercial or practical expertise in > the areas they are a policy advocate for. It is a great shame and a direct > consequence is bad policy or spreading of misinformation. > > And yes, I've experience plenty of the prejudices of the latter part of > your message. I understand people wanting to 'trust, but verify' as it > were. I don't understand the unvarnished bigotry and prejudice (which some > of you may remember directed at me by some a few months ago). Prejudice > applied to groups is a generalisation - not good, but understandable to > some extent. Prejudice applied to individuals is just wrong - and harmful > to all involved. > On 26 May 2013 12:00, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > >> Equally, people with purely a policy or political background are going to >> be just as poor in predicting consequences. Either due to a lack of >> awareness of operational reality, or a skewed perspective, or both. >> >> There are comparatively very few people with both technical AND policy >> knowledge, and while the cross fertilization between these two streams >> happens, it doesn't happen as often as I would wish .. and at least in some >> sections of civil society's eyes such cross fertilization produces >> "tainted" people. >> >> You know .. suspect corporations of mens rea, suspect people who >> associate with or work for those corporations as being evil corporate >> stooges who are only working for their employer's selfish interests etc >> etc, one false premise built on another till a very shaky pyramid of pure >> hostility takes shape. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 26-May-2013, at 14:02, Roland Perry >> wrote: >> >> > In message <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com>, at 10:15:31 on >> Sun, 26 May 2013, michael gurstein writes >> >> >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-danger-of-blin >> >> dly-trusting-the-technocrats/article12106081/#dashboard/follows/ >> >> >> >> Worth taking a look at (and thinking through the relevance of) the >> >> underlying paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w18921.pdf?new_window=1whose >> >> central argument is that successful policy (both in terms of social >> equity >> >> but also in terms of economic benefit) is ultimately about finding >> political >> >> solutions rather than relying on technical ones. >> >> >> >> Perhaps of equal relevance in IG as in economic policy. >> > >> > Technocrats are very poor at predicting unintended consequences. That >> may sound like a truism, but it's often possible for a fresh pair of less >> rosy-spectacled eyes to spot a drawback that the original team didn't. And >> the "team" can be quite a big one. >> > -- >> > Roland Perry >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 03:07:53 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:07:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> Hi, Parts of this discussion have me bemused. For example we have seen many cases where certain members of Civil society are against most things corporate, yet, get the bulk of their funding from corporate funds. I have no problem with their funding, but I have trouble understanding how they can be against most things corporate at the same time. The fact that corporate funders continue to fund anti-corporate rhetoric impresses me with the funder's neutrality, but the idea that a group can take with one hand and damn on the other is confusing. I think we need to recognize that the stakeholder groups, while having specific identities, affinities and perspectives all their own, are interrelated at many level of abstraction. I believe an NGO can take money from a corporate sponsor without being tainted by that money - i see it done all the time and I have seen lots of corporate sponsors practice a hands-off donation policy. And I have seen people unjustly tainted by the source of their monies; that seems a bad thing. I have also seen situations where Civil society actors have close relationships with corporate actors, sometimes even collecting paychecks from those corporate actors. In some of these cases, I have seen (and had personal experience) of those businesses having a hands-off policy about the things their employees said and did as Civil society actors. And true I have seen a few occasions where the funding source of one sort or another motivates a civil society actor a trifle too much. but much less often than I might have expected. As far as I can tell most NGOs get some part of their money from corporate sources or activities, except perhaps for the GONGOs, yet they are genuinely Civil Society. As for the technical community, I think those of us who consider ourselves hybrid members of both the Technical Community and Civil Society have a duty to be open about our dual affinity. For example, I freely admit that I will never support a policy unless I think it is technically possible (doesn't need to be probable just barely possible is good enough for me); for me technology defines what is possible and my understanding of public interest defines the normative bits. I also think we should be clear about which stakeholder is our prime association. But when we start judging the intent of people and begin to call various civil society members carriers for dominant groups whether they be corporate or government, we get into a dangerous territory, the kind of territory that can severely damage whatever shreds of relevance the IGC might still have. It is actually possible for civil society actors to agree with something that the other stakeholders have to say without making them carriers of some awful taint. I think that as proponents of participatory democracy of all stakeholders and peoples, commonly referred to by the m-word these days, we need to first learn how to be tolerant of our own diversity. And beleive me I know how hard that can be, my tongue is blistered from the frequency with which I have been biting it lately*. My draft folder is also full of messages written and never sent. avri * to bite ones tongue, Fig. to struggle not to say something that you really want to say. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+tongue -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 05:21:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:21:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism Message-ID: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Please keep in mind what it takes to have an environment where constructive discussion takes place. It is acceptable and in fact good and valuable to have postings that others disagree with. The same applies to postings that express such disagreement, and give reasons for the disagreement, etc. Some postings fall in both of those good categories, for example when someone characterizes and criticizes something that is in his view an unfortunately trend in civil society, that is legitimate criticism, and at the same time probably others will disagree. On the other hand we have also had a different kind of postings: Postings that do not seek to move a debate forward, but only make disparaging remarks about a viewpoint that is disagreed with. Such postings violate the rule against “sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment”. This kind of postings is particularly harmful when directed against minority viewpoints (likely with conscious or unconscious objective to prevent the effective expression of those viewpoints) or when directed against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) 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 avri at ella.com Mon May 27 05:27:51 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:27:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> On 27 May 2013, at 11:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: > or when directed > against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be > legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but > disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much > against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) this goes too far. please warm me now avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 27 05:53:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:53:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE Message-ID: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 06:09:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:39:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <13ee56d18a1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden politicking, insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. Please read http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ -srs (htc one x) On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly > consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth > floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. > > Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive > Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” > that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the > United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, > conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of > Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an > expensive mess for everyone else. > > Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to > the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist > innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 07:48:25 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:48:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Please keep in mind what it takes to have an environment where > constructive discussion takes place. > > It is acceptable and in fact good and valuable to have postings > that others disagree with. The same applies to postings that > express such disagreement, and give reasons for the disagreement, > etc. Some postings fall in both of those good categories, for example > when someone characterizes and criticizes something that is in his > view an unfortunately trend in civil society, that is legitimate > criticism, and at the same time probably others will disagree. So if one notes a trend towards thought-policeism on the part of the co-co's that is ok according to the above para, but not ok according to the below para? > > On the other hand we have also had a different kind of postings: > Postings that do not seek to move a debate forward, but only make > disparaging remarks about a viewpoint that is disagreed with. Such > postings violate the rule against “sequences of messages by one or more > participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment”. > This kind of postings is particularly harmful when directed against > minority viewpoints (likely with conscious or unconscious objective to > prevent the effective expression of those viewpoints) or when directed > against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be > legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but > disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much > against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon May 27 08:39:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:39:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> Before just starting to find holes, I recommend reading the book (e-book available in Amazon). On 05/27/2013 07:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. > > A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much > resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, > unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and > characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden politicking, > insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? > Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. DPI = eavesdropping (whatever the purpose) --> most frequently yes Spam filtering = protection racket --> in several cases, yes --c.a. > > Please read > http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ > > -srs (htc one x) > > > > On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: >> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a >> rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on >> the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. >> >> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, >> “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New >> Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the >> information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, >> speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google >> last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo >> has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. >> >> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even >> access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who >> resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 08:47:43 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:17:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <13ee60798b9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I have actually read several previous blog posts by Ms Crawford as well, to which the book is a logical extension It is a school of thought that I don't fully agree with --srs (htc one x) On 27 May 2013 6:09:27 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Before just starting to find holes, I recommend reading the book (e-book > available in Amazon). > > On 05/27/2013 07:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. > > > > A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much > > resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, > > unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and > > characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden politicking, > > insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? > > Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. > > DPI = eavesdropping (whatever the purpose) --> most frequently yes > Spam filtering = protection racket --> in several cases, yes > > --c.a. > > > > > Please read > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ > > > > -srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a > >> rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on > >> the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. > >> > >> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, > >> “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New > >> Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the > >> information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, > >> speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google > >> last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo > >> has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. > >> > >> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even > >> access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who > >> resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > > >> > >> > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon May 27 08:56:49 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:56:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <13ee60798b9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> <13ee60798b9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51A35811.4000900@cafonso.ca> OK, but I think the book is more fact-finding than a school of thought. frt rgds --c.a. On 05/27/2013 09:47 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I have actually read several previous blog posts by Ms Crawford as well, > to which the book is a logical extension > > It is a school of thought that I don't fully agree with > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 27 May 2013 6:09:27 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> Before just starting to find holes, I recommend reading the book >> (e-book available in Amazon). >> >> On 05/27/2013 07:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. >> > >> > A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much >> > resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, >> > unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and >> > characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden politicking, >> > insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? >> > Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. >> >> DPI = eavesdropping (whatever the purpose) --> most frequently yes >> Spam filtering = protection racket --> in several cases, yes >> >> --c.a. >> >> > >> > Please read >> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ >> > >> > -srs (htc one x) >> > >> > >> > >> > On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" >> wrote: >> >> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a >> >> rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on >> >> the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. >> >> >> >> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, >> >> “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New >> >> Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the >> >> information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, >> >> speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google >> >> last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo >> >> has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. >> >> >> >> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even >> >> access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who >> >> resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 09:06:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:36:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A35811.4000900@cafonso.ca> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> <13ee60798b9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A35811.4000900@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <13ee6189481.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Facts which are carefully found to support her viewpoint.. A slightly more balanced view might have worked better --srs (htc one x) On 27 May 2013 6:26:49 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > OK, but I think the book is more fact-finding than a school of thought. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 05/27/2013 09:47 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I have actually read several previous blog posts by Ms Crawford as well, > > to which the book is a logical extension > > > > It is a school of thought that I don't fully agree with > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 27 May 2013 6:09:27 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> Before just starting to find holes, I recommend reading the book > >> (e-book available in Amazon). > >> > >> On 05/27/2013 07:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. > >> > > >> > A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much > >> > resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, > >> > unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and > >> > characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden politicking, > >> > insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? > >> > Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. > >> > >> DPI = eavesdropping (whatever the purpose) --> most frequently yes > >> Spam filtering = protection racket --> in several cases, yes > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> > > >> > Please read > >> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ > >> > > >> > -srs (htc one x) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" > >> wrote: > >> >> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a > >> >> rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on > >> >> the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. > >> >> > >> >> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, > >> >> “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New > >> >> Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the > >> >> information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, > >> >> speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google > >> >> last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo > >> >> has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. > >> >> > >> >> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even > >> >> access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who > >> >> resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon May 27 09:15:46 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:15:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <13ee6189481.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <13ee5771b89.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A353FF.6030602@cafonso.ca> <13ee60798b9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51A35811.4000900@cafonso.ca> <13ee6189481.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51A35C82.3090903@cafonso.ca> For us in BR the cases she reports are yet another reference to compare with similar oligopolistic practices of the European telcos (and a Mexican...) here, with similar consequences regarding pricing, quality at the edge, and imposition of traffic-manipulation packages, absurd "triple-play" rules etc. Just had an opportunity to check how this is going in Canada. The policy of "four players in each market" of the Canadian gov was destroyed by the three big players (Rogers, Telus & Bell) who run along the likes of Comcast etc; the last rites were given by the demise of Mobilicity. frt rgds --c.a. On 05/27/2013 10:06 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Facts which are carefully found to support her viewpoint.. A slightly > more balanced view might have worked better > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 27 May 2013 6:26:49 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> OK, but I think the book is more fact-finding than a school of thought. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/27/2013 09:47 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > I have actually read several previous blog posts by Ms Crawford as >> well, >> > to which the book is a logical extension >> > >> > It is a school of thought that I don't fully agree with >> > >> > --srs (htc one x) >> > >> > >> > >> > On 27 May 2013 6:09:27 PM "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> Before just starting to find holes, I recommend reading the book >> >> (e-book available in Amazon). >> >> >> >> On 05/27/2013 07:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> > It is a familiar argument but one with several holes in it. >> >> > >> >> > A skewed version of network neutrality that doesn't bear much >> >> > resemblance to what the original form of net neutrality was, CLECs, >> >> > unbundled and traffic discrimination by wholesale isps, and >> >> > characterized by at least some of the same innuendo laden >> politicking, >> >> > insinuating mens rea on the part of those they're opposed to.. DPI? >> >> > Eavesdropping. Spam filtering? A protection racket.. >> >> >> >> DPI = eavesdropping (whatever the purpose) --> most frequently yes >> >> Spam filtering = protection racket --> in several cases, yes >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Please read >> >> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree/ >> >> > >> >> > -srs (htc one x) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 27 May 2013 3:23:23 PM "michael gurstein" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a >> >> >> rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end >> up on >> >> >> the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New >> York. >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, >> >> >> “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in >> the New >> >> >> Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the >> >> >> information age in the United States. She is on a permanent >> campaign, >> >> >> speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google >> >> >> last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo >> >> >> has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone >> else. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even >> >> >> access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists >> who >> >> >> resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Mon May 27 15:33:57 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:33:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> I find her perspective not strange. Its sexy to think market forces will keep service providers honest but history has shown this is not always the case. The stats on Mexico, I find interesting and wonder if anyone has similar figs for their country/region. As the US faces its challenges to increase ict access at cheaper rates so every citizen can engage, every nation has to decide and act on what's critical to their survival. I'll close by saying the idea of capitalism left in the hands of private sector and govt getting out of the way of progress leaves much to be desired. I firmly believe any truly developed society must be based on a tri-sector platform ensuring adequate checks and balance for all concerned. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: "michael gurstein" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:53:23 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein" Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon May 27 21:54:09 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:24:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: There is a big difference between laissez faire and having a proactive and informed regulator who engages equally with industry and civil society. In any case, there is a difference between work where you engage with the other party and try to find common ground, versus work where you characterize them as evil, greedy profiteers and oppose anything at all they say on general principles. I fully agree with your last paragraph about a tri sector platform. thanks --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 1:03, babatope at gmail.com wrote: > I find her perspective not strange. Its sexy to think market forces will keep service providers honest but history has shown this is not always the case. > > The stats on Mexico, I find interesting and wonder if anyone has similar figs for their country/region. > > As the US faces its challenges to increase ict access at cheaper rates so every citizen can engage, every nation has to decide and act on what's critical to their survival. > > I'll close by saying the idea of capitalism left in the hands of private sector and govt getting out of the way of progress leaves much to be desired. I firmly believe any truly developed society must be based on a tri-sector platform ensuring adequate checks and balance for all concerned. > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. > From: "michael gurstein" > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:53:23 +0300 > To: > ReplyTo: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein" > Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE > > If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. > > Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. > > Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 01:36:08 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:36:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> Message-ID: <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> Why does it go too far? If one is engaging in civil society one can have one's views, but at least must be open to persuasion, or no? If what you argue is true then I too have lots of motive to dredge up and raise on this list, particularly regarding collaborators and what I call the paternalistic liberal bent. I am very happy to discuss this in terms of motives and substance - it was not fruitful in the past, but hey I am already boxed in as anti-American (on a very loose charaterisation as I would join self-hating Americans who share my crits) so that would give me and a bunch of us some real space to move on what is a constrained list at best. Norbert, I for one find the recent discussions much more amenable to engagement, the decorum is great, and have noted much more participation. It is important that the role you play be treated with the decorum it deserves, even if you personally may have issues with people. I vote that the list is MUCH better since your interventions... Does anyone feel like this too? Or is the 'consensus' with Avri in general approach or tenor? Riaz On 2013/05/27 12:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 27 May 2013, at 11:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> or when directed >> against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be >> legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but >> disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much >> against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) > this goes too far. > please warm me now > > avri > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 01:43:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:13:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50F58510-8C56-48A1-8AFB-76D9A916B5E7@hserus.net> I dont characterize you specifically as anti american - merely feel that you need some operational background to possibly modify your economic theories on the internet. Especially the "single rooters" but there is more jargon there that I fear will lead to you talking past anybody with a technical background, however much economics they happen to know. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 11:06, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Why does it go too far? > > If one is engaging in civil society one can have one's views, but at least must be open to persuasion, or no? > > If what you argue is true then I too have lots of motive to dredge up and raise on this list, particularly regarding collaborators and what I call the paternalistic liberal bent. I am very happy to discuss this in terms of motives and substance - it was not fruitful in the past, but hey I am already boxed in as anti-American (on a very loose charaterisation as I would join self-hating Americans who share my crits) so that would give me and a bunch of us some real space to move on what is a constrained list at best. > > Norbert, I for one find the recent discussions much more amenable to engagement, the decorum is great, and have noted much more participation. It is important that the role you play be treated with the decorum it deserves, even if you personally may have issues with people. I vote that the list is MUCH better since your interventions... Does anyone feel like this too? Or is the 'consensus' with Avri in general approach or tenor? > > Riaz > > On 2013/05/27 12:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 27 May 2013, at 11:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> or when directed >>> against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be >>> legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but >>> disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much >>> against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) >> this goes too far. >> please warm me now >> >> avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 01:22:57 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> Message-ID: <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> FWIW, which is why deliberation is important where the trump card is reason (even if we disagree at first principles). In this vein, creating a strawman (like assuming a critical stance is necessarily an aggressive one, like the ad nauseum pining about corporates as stakeholders as being no different from, for instance, public interest arguments or positions) and shooting them down is a rather weak tactical move if not backed up by substance. Even Greenspan gets the point that self-interest (or profit) may not be an adequate check on 'animal spirits' of the market. These matters are context specific, and it simply depends... We can all see what light touch regulation or self-supervision have done to the US in the name of profit and efficiency in the mortgage market. With being ad hominem, one (not you or anyone specific here) really has to be crazy or blind or ideologically or financially committed to push the soft touch or trust the profit motive line in this day and age. But perhaps not, with about 11 trillion spent on bankers and the bill sent to the people (sequester) it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the US goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is futile... Riaz On 2013/05/27 10:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Parts of this discussion have me bemused. For example we have seen many cases where certain members of Civil society are against most things corporate, yet, get the bulk of their funding from corporate funds. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 01:30:06 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:30:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A440DE.50009@gmail.com> On 2013/05/27 09:23 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > In the end, self-justificatory righteousness by civil society can be > just as harmful as industry advocacy that is designed only to benefit > a company or a sector without regard for broader impacts. Nick this is simply a truism. We face a collective action trap here. And it is the AGE OLD problem with democratic organisation, benefits that are small and widespread have trouble competing with small organised groups that glean large benefits. That should simply make public interest receive more space in the field than petulance from corporates (who anyway use the revolving door to good effect) BECAUSE finding people knowledgeable and committed to the public interest is difficult, as is managing conflicts of interests. One could go the WHO way and ignore ANY meaningful management of conflicts of interests, and get a Swine Flu pandemic that was not a pandemic, or one could encourage the MStakeholder crew to take these matters seriously. The imbalance is neglect of public interest AND the ability of corporates to "collude" (legitimately or not so) for their interests, which can be at odds with the public interest. The strawman created by repetition does not become more true because of its frequency nor the marginalisation that corporates feel. It will not do to be self-righteous for civil society, nor will it do for corporates or their representatives to push for self interest that is not contingent. This is just politics... and the terrain must be equitable and fair... that is all.. all the rest we can work out... 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 02:04:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 23:04:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <51A440DE.50009@gmail.com> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <51A440DE.50009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130528060429.GE12803@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [28/05/13 08:30 +0300]: >The imbalance is neglect of public interest AND the ability of >corporates to "collude" (legitimately or not so) for their interests, >which can be at odds with the public interest. The strawman created >by repetition does not become more true because of its frequency nor >the marginalisation that corporates feel. I am sorry, but this is using a strawman to counter what you consider to be a strawman. Applying a term like "collusion" to all inter industry cooperation is just not on - do note that 'collusion' has a specific meaning legally. thanks suresh -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 28 02:28:09 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:28:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the US goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is futile... Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is that what you are saying? 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 amessinoukossi at gmail.com Tue May 28 03:17:05 2013 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:17:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear all, Net neutrality and more is challenge for all. As i am concern, in my country we have not technology to cheick any Net trafic. It is for that raison our neerbord registre a lot of trafic. Is-it normal to see Internet be control? at what level? 2013/5/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian > There is a big difference between laissez faire and having a proactive and > informed regulator who engages equally with industry and civil society. > > In any case, there is a difference between work where you engage with the > other party and try to find common ground, versus work where you > characterize them as evil, greedy profiteers and oppose anything at all > they say on general principles. > > I fully agree with your last paragraph about a tri sector platform. > > thanks > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-May-2013, at 1:03, babatope at gmail.com wrote: > > I find her perspective not strange. Its sexy to think market forces will > keep service providers honest but history has shown this is not always the > case. > > The stats on Mexico, I find interesting and wonder if anyone has similar > figs for their country/region. > > As the US faces its challenges to increase ict access at cheaper rates so > every citizen can engage, every nation has to decide and act on what's > critical to their survival. > > I'll close by saying the idea of capitalism left in the hands of private > sector and govt getting out of the way of progress leaves much to be > desired. I firmly believe any truly developed society must be based on a > tri-sector platform ensuring adequate checks and balance for all concerned. > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile > broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for > details. > ------------------------------ > *From: * "michael gurstein" > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Mon, 27 May 2013 12:53:23 +0300 > *To: * > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein" < > gurstein at gmail.com> > *Subject: *[governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE > > If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly > consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth > floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.**** > > Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive > Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” > that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the > United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, > conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of > Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an > expensive mess for everyone else.**** > > Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access > to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist > innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. > > **** > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur des TIC ICT Engineer Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou @amessinou @bigf Que Dieu vous bénisse Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 03:32:24 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:32:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> On 28 May 2013, at 09:17, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > Is-it normal to see Internet be control? at what level? I beleive that governments, if we let them, will control the Internet to the point at which none of us have anything more than a walled garden with selections that are approved for the populations. These walled gardens will be rich with content and lovely to inhabit, but not necessarily the content we want or need. Most of the the population will be satisfied and as the CS rep fro Belarus said yesterday at one of the Human Rights council side meetings, "we have Internet." But as an Azerbaijani participant said at a meeting last year, is a walled garden the Internet. Some freedom of expression and association will be allowed so that there is something to surveil, so there will always be some limited ability to comment - they can't catch the threats if they don't allow the citizens a bit of leash. Through the slow march of making citizenry ever more safe and harmonious, all done for the very best of reasons, governments will constrict the Internet's availability evermore. But this can only occur if we allow them. Hence the permanent struggle to keep the Internet open. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue May 28 03:48:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:18:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> Message-ID: I would +1 that Avri. It's not that we'd call it quite as horrific as the borg are defined in star trek - just that resistance seems quite futile, so similar in that context.... On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the US > goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is > futile... > > > Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget > participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg > and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that > this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, > but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it > outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is > that what you are saying? > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 03:51:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:21:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <1BFB6CCB-2B92-4855-8FFF-FA1057121CC7@hserus.net> Hi Do you mean lots of traffic as in lots of international transit consumed? Peering in a local exchange might help for that. Can you please be more specific. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 12:47, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > Dear all, > Net neutrality and more is challenge for all. As i am concern, in my country we have not technology to cheick any Net trafic. It is for that raison our neerbord registre a lot of trafic. > > Is-it normal to see Internet be control? at what level? > > > > 2013/5/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian >> There is a big difference between laissez faire and having a proactive and informed regulator who engages equally with industry and civil society. >> >> In any case, there is a difference between work where you engage with the other party and try to find common ground, versus work where you characterize them as evil, greedy profiteers and oppose anything at all they say on general principles. >> >> I fully agree with your last paragraph about a tri sector platform. >> >> thanks >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-May-2013, at 1:03, babatope at gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I find her perspective not strange. Its sexy to think market forces will keep service providers honest but history has shown this is not always the case. >>> >>> The stats on Mexico, I find interesting and wonder if anyone has similar figs for their country/region. >>> >>> As the US faces its challenges to increase ict access at cheaper rates so every citizen can engage, every nation has to decide and act on what's critical to their survival. >>> >>> I'll close by saying the idea of capitalism left in the hands of private sector and govt getting out of the way of progress leaves much to be desired. I firmly believe any truly developed society must be based on a tri-sector platform ensuring adequate checks and balance for all concerned. >>> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. >>> From: "michael gurstein" >>> Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:53:23 +0300 >>> To: >>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein" >>> Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE >>> >>> If you were going to look for ground zero in the fight against a rapidly consolidating telecom and cable industry, you might end up on the fifth floor of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. >>> >>> Susan Crawford, a professor at the school, has written a book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” that offers a calm but chilling state-of-play on the information age in the United States. She is on a permanent campaign, speaking at schools, conferences and companies — she was at Google last week — and in front of Congress, asserting that the status quo has been great for providers but an expensive mess for everyone else. >>> >>> Ms. Crawford argues that the airwaves, the cable systems and even access to the Internet itself have been overtaken by monopolists who resist innovation and chronically overcharge consumers. >>> >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/media/telecoms-big-players-hold-back-the-future.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130520&_r=0 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > AMESSINOU Kossi > Ingénieur des TIC > ICT Engineer > Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 > skype: amessinou > @amessinou @bigf > Que Dieu vous bénisse > Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 03:54:18 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:54:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> Message-ID: <31E992D0-9C87-4472-BF4A-B6B707A61499@ella.com> On 27 May 2013, at 11:27, Avri Doria wrote: > On 27 May 2013, at 11:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> or when directed >> against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be >> legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but >> disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much >> against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) > > this goes too far. > please warm me now a few people have commented on my typo. I obviously meant 'warn' but i think my mind was lost somewhere between warning and being burnt at the stake as a heretic of the new order. hence warm. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 04:04:59 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:04:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> On 28 May 2013, at 07:36, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Why does it go too far? When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. Even kings should be open to criticism, open public criticism, without fear of disciplinary criticism (though if course that is not always the case) Let alone coordinators whose only power is in coordination. It goes too far, because it assumes a power that is not granted in the charter. There is no clause that says disagreement or criticism of the coordinator is cause for discipline. It is a new practice in the current regime, and it is a practice that needs to be fought each step of the way else it will start to seem like an accepted practice. It is not a practice that I beleive should be acquiesced to. We are not meant to have authority on this list just coordination. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 04:12:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 01:12:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <31E992D0-9C87-4472-BF4A-B6B707A61499@ella.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <31E992D0-9C87-4472-BF4A-B6B707A61499@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130528081205.GA14343@hserus.net> Oh, I assumed you were talking about the chilling effect of Norbert's statement Avri Doria [28/05/13 09:54 +0200]: > >On 27 May 2013, at 11:27, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 27 May 2013, at 11:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> or when directed >>> against actions of a coordinator (actions of coordinators can be >>> legitimately discussed and --if that is desired-- appealed, but >>> disparaging remarks about actions of a coordinator are just as much >>> against the posting rules as personal attacks against anyone else.) >> >> this goes too far. >> please warm me now > > >a few people have commented on my typo. > >I obviously meant 'warn' >but i think my mind was lost somewhere between >warning >and >being burnt at the stake as a heretic of the new order. > >hence warm. > >avri > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 06:04:47 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:04:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> Message-ID: Glad you checked on this. No, to answer your question, quite the opposite. As a democrat (not in the US party sense) I believe in the reality of choice and in using the democratic means to accomplish these aims. A free trade, laissez faire, libertarian or neoclassical view essentially is leave things to the market, self interest will manage things. Taken to its own logical end, it is passivity as a strategy. On the other hand there are those that recognise that self interest is continengent, markets also are political, and that where things "work" they should be left to the market (as cell phone deployment in Africa attests - albeit not with the same understandings that Milton has of this process, as it was oligopolistic rather than pure competition as created by the state to manage destructive competition). Activism coupled with idealism. Yes, this does go to first principles and how it shapes the discourse, hence the frequent disagreements because of initial starting points in the analysis. In short, democrats believe in the reality of choice and the need to shape our environment to ensure benefits and minimisation of social costs. And on your specific reading of the Borg and futility and US activists participation in civil society: 1. I frequently post matters by American civil society where there is confluence of values, eg EFF, ACLU, etc. Hence I cannot understand how you get to the "conclusions" you do... but it is an intimation of how you approach issues and I will bear that in mind that this is the interpretive framework applied, and here is where I need to be more sensitive so as to preclude such interpretations. But like you, I also find this tedious. 2. The critical stance taken by me and imho is interpreted as anti-corporate or anti-American is under a very peculiar definition of anti-corporatism or anti-Americanism. As my history of posts will bear out, in the interests of discussions and engagement, I was happy to be anti-American based on the definition used by some on the list, a definition that is at best platitudinous or valid from a particular sensibility. But in these engagements the substance of the matter gets lost, even if a counterargument is put forth. It has been repeatedly said (and the record will bear me out) that corporate interests are valid, they should participate, but it is contingent if private vested interest shares the same interest as public interest (making money is reason enough, but not always). The fact that we have to repeatedly deal with this accusation is perhaps more akin to reasons in 1 above so I will not go into that. Reason I can deal with, win or loose, but I am not going to look for needles in the hay stack. 3. And it is hard to reconcile your penultimate sentence with the final one, but happy to engage. On 28 May 2013 09:28, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the US > goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is > futile... > > > Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget > participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg > and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that > this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, > but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it > outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is > that what you are saying? > > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 06:16:32 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:16:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> Message-ID: What resistence are you talking about? In general or regarding CIR? Imho, as far as CIR goes, and frequent attempts to shape the agenda on these matters, particularly with regard to third world players, resistence to ICANN is futile. Even just simple recognition that self interest of corporates does not NECESSARILY accord with the public interest as an issue is a problem, even is MS governance is accepted as a valid proposition in its current form. This is the case even after the financial crisis when even Alan Greenspan found a flaw in his ideology because players did not act according to their self interest and pursuit of profit! The reason why it is easy to go to motive with these kinds of views (aside from the fact that academics and practitioners of these kinds of views like the Oracle Greenspan): 1. Proponents of the theory or views criticise or recognise the shortcomings themselves. 2. The logic of the theory is less than felicitously applied (internal coherence) - free markets are best (never mind that ALL the big corporates do not operate in perfectly competitive markets, in fact far from the ideal of being price takers with multiple firms that exercise no market power, or that there is silence on breaking up these less than perfectly competitive firms, ICANN is a creation of statute - it functions both as a public utility and with some market orientation) even when analytic applied is so abstract as to be devoid of any empirical foundation. But since we have been here before, I defer from now on as my truth is not improved by overstatement nor repetition. Riaz On 28 May 2013 10:48, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I would +1 that Avri. It's not that we'd call it quite as horrific as the > borg are defined in star trek - just that resistance seems quite futile, so > similar in that context.... > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >> > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the >> US goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is >> futile... >> >> >> Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget >> participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg >> and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that >> this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, >> but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it >> outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is >> that what you are saying? >> >> avri >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 06:19:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:19:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@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> Message-ID: So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR? On 28 May 2013 10:32, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 09:17, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > > > Is-it normal to see Internet be control? at what level? > > > I beleive that governments, if we let them, will control the Internet to > the point at which none of us have anything more than a walled garden with > selections that are approved for the populations. These walled gardens > will be rich with content and lovely to inhabit, but not necessarily the > content we want or need. Most of the the population will be satisfied and > as the CS rep fro Belarus said yesterday at one of the Human Rights council > side meetings, "we have Internet." But as an Azerbaijani participant said > at a meeting last year, is a walled garden the Internet. > > Some freedom of expression and association will be allowed so that there > is something to surveil, so there will always be some limited ability to > comment - they can't catch the threats if they don't allow the citizens a > bit of leash. > > Through the slow march of making citizenry ever more safe and harmonious, > all done for the very best of reasons, governments will constrict the > Internet's availability evermore. > > But this can only occur if we allow them. Hence the permanent struggle to > keep the Internet open. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 06:27:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:57:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> Message-ID: Not Avri but commerce has been generally hands off and icann does have multiple stakeholders and a fairly open process Have you participated in it or would you prefer to critique it from the outside? --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 15:49, Riaz Tayob wrote: > So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR? > > > On 28 May 2013 10:32, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2013, at 09:17, Kossi Amessinou wrote: >> >> > Is-it normal to see Internet be control? at what level? >> >> >> I beleive that governments, if we let them, will control the Internet to the point at which none of us have anything more than a walled garden with selections that are approved for the populations. These walled gardens will be rich with content and lovely to inhabit, but not necessarily the content we want or need. Most of the the population will be satisfied and as the CS rep fro Belarus said yesterday at one of the Human Rights council side meetings, "we have Internet." But as an Azerbaijani participant said at a meeting last year, is a walled garden the Internet. >> >> Some freedom of expression and association will be allowed so that there is something to surveil, so there will always be some limited ability to comment - they can't catch the threats if they don't allow the citizens a bit of leash. >> >> Through the slow march of making citizenry ever more safe and harmonious, all done for the very best of reasons, governments will constrict the Internet's availability evermore. >> >> But this can only occur if we allow them. Hence the permanent struggle to keep the Internet open. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 28 06:31:47 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:31:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> Message-ID: <880FB2DC-016D-47BB-AB41-FFEEF6F64CF9@acm.org> Hi, Cool. I was wrong. Glad I checked. My push-pull is that I definitely don't trust the so-called free market, but for many reasons i don't trust the government either. Though there are some in the corporate world I trust just as there are some in government I trust. That is why I think the multistakeholder participatory models we are trying to craft are the only way to go. avri On 28 May 2013, at 12:04, Riaz Tayob wrote: > Glad you checked on this. No, to answer your question, quite the opposite. As a democrat (not in the US party sense) I believe in the reality of choice and in using the democratic means to accomplish these aims. A free trade, laissez faire, libertarian or neoclassical view essentially is leave things to the market, self interest will manage things. Taken to its own logical end, it is passivity as a strategy. On the other hand there are those that recognise that self interest is continengent, markets also are political, and that where things "work" they should be left to the market (as cell phone deployment in Africa attests - albeit not with the same understandings that Milton has of this process, as it was oligopolistic rather than pure competition as created by the state to manage destructive competition). Activism coupled with idealism. Yes, this does go to first principles and how it shapes the discourse, hence the frequent disagreements because of initial starting points in the analysis. In short, democrats believe in the reality of choice and the need to shape our environment to ensure benefits and minimisation of social costs. > > And on your specific reading of the Borg and futility and US activists participation in civil society: > > 1. I frequently post matters by American civil society where there is confluence of values, eg EFF, ACLU, etc. Hence I cannot understand how you get to the "conclusions" you do... but it is an intimation of how you approach issues and I will bear that in mind that this is the interpretive framework applied, and here is where I need to be more sensitive so as to preclude such interpretations. But like you, I also find this tedious. > > 2. The critical stance taken by me and imho is interpreted as anti-corporate or anti-American is under a very peculiar definition of anti-corporatism or anti-Americanism. As my history of posts will bear out, in the interests of discussions and engagement, I was happy to be anti-American based on the definition used by some on the list, a definition that is at best platitudinous or valid from a particular sensibility. But in these engagements the substance of the matter gets lost, even if a counterargument is put forth. It has been repeatedly said (and the record will bear me out) that corporate interests are valid, they should participate, but it is contingent if private vested interest shares the same interest as public interest (making money is reason enough, but not always). The fact that we have to repeatedly deal with this accusation is perhaps more akin to reasons in 1 above so I will not go into that. Reason I can deal with, win or loose, but I am not going to look for needles in the hay stack. > > 3. And it is hard to reconcile your penultimate sentence with the final one, but happy to engage. > > > On 28 May 2013 09:28, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the US goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is futile... > > > Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is that what you are saying? > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 06:32:38 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:32:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> Message-ID: I agree with that. So how to take forward yours, Adams McT et al concerns forward so that irrespective of the current occupants of the job the institution is not brought into disrepute? At least we need to have some consensus on institutional validity, right? On 28 May 2013 11:04, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 07:36, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > Why does it go too far? > > > When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is cause > for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. > Even kings should be open to criticism, open public criticism, without > fear of disciplinary criticism (though if course that is not always the > case) > Let alone coordinators whose only power is in coordination. > > It goes too far, because it assumes a power that is not granted in the > charter. > There is no clause that says disagreement or criticism of the coordinator > is cause for discipline. > It is a new practice in the current regime, and it is a practice that > needs to be fought each step of the way else it will start to seem like an > accepted practice. It is not a practice that I beleive should be > acquiesced to. We are not meant to have authority on this list just > coordination. > > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 06:42:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:42:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] The danger of blindly trusting the technocrats In-Reply-To: <880FB2DC-016D-47BB-AB41-FFEEF6F64CF9@acm.org> References: <018b01ce59e0$e04fde00$a0ef9a00$@gmail.com> <791FD314-8F2D-4816-8529-9301F1B44B88@ella.com> <51A43F31.7050400@gmail.com> <9B00D837-0628-4024-B513-8D5EC9AA7200@acm.org> <880FB2DC-016D-47BB-AB41-FFEEF6F64CF9@acm.org> Message-ID: Cool bananas! :) On 28 May 2013 13:31, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Cool. I was wrong. Glad I checked. > > My push-pull is that I definitely don't trust the so-called free market, > but for many reasons i don't trust the government either. > Though there are some in the corporate world I trust just as there are > some in government I trust. > > That is why I think the multistakeholder participatory models we are > trying to craft are the only way to go. > > avri > > On 28 May 2013, at 12:04, Riaz Tayob wrote: > > > Glad you checked on this. No, to answer your question, quite the > opposite. As a democrat (not in the US party sense) I believe in the > reality of choice and in using the democratic means to accomplish these > aims. A free trade, laissez faire, libertarian or neoclassical view > essentially is leave things to the market, self interest will manage > things. Taken to its own logical end, it is passivity as a strategy. On the > other hand there are those that recognise that self interest is > continengent, markets also are political, and that where things "work" they > should be left to the market (as cell phone deployment in Africa attests - > albeit not with the same understandings that Milton has of this process, as > it was oligopolistic rather than pure competition as created by the state > to manage destructive competition). Activism coupled with idealism. Yes, > this does go to first principles and how it shapes the discourse, hence the > frequent disagreements because of initial starting points in the analysis. > In short, democrats believe in the reality of choice and the need to shape > our environment to ensure benefits and minimisation of social costs. > > > > And on your specific reading of the Borg and futility and US activists > participation in civil society: > > > > 1. I frequently post matters by American civil society where there is > confluence of values, eg EFF, ACLU, etc. Hence I cannot understand how you > get to the "conclusions" you do... but it is an intimation of how you > approach issues and I will bear that in mind that this is the interpretive > framework applied, and here is where I need to be more sensitive so as to > preclude such interpretations. But like you, I also find this tedious. > > > > 2. The critical stance taken by me and imho is interpreted as > anti-corporate or anti-American is under a very peculiar definition of > anti-corporatism or anti-Americanism. As my history of posts will bear out, > in the interests of discussions and engagement, I was happy to be > anti-American based on the definition used by some on the list, a > definition that is at best platitudinous or valid from a particular > sensibility. But in these engagements the substance of the matter gets > lost, even if a counterargument is put forth. It has been repeatedly said > (and the record will bear me out) that corporate interests are valid, they > should participate, but it is contingent if private vested interest shares > the same interest as public interest (making money is reason enough, but > not always). The fact that we have to repeatedly deal with this accusation > is perhaps more akin to reasons in 1 above so I will not go into that. > Reason I can deal with, win or loose, but I am not going to look for > needles in the hay stack. > > > > 3. And it is hard to reconcile your penultimate sentence with the final > one, but happy to engage. > > > > > > On 28 May 2013 09:28, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 28 May 2013, at 07:22, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > it seems like the Borg has it right as far as public interest in the > US goes (of course from an outsider perspective looking in) - resistance is > futile... > > > > > > Is it your point that if you are from the US you might as well forget > participating in civil society because you are part of the corporate Borg > and there is nothing you can do about it? I have long suspected that that > this belief was the underlying unspoken philosophy by many on this list, > but this is the closest I think I have seen anyone actually say it > outright. So I figured I would check to make sure I understood correct, is > that what you are saying? > > > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 28 07:00:18 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:00:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> Message-ID: <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: > So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR? Not sure what you mean by DOC origination. I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or to a intergovernmental institution. I don't beleive that ICANN controls cIr, but rather that it control one form of names and has some influence over IP numbering, though by no means controlling inlfuence - talk to the RIRs about the control of numbers. As for ICANN it is in process of becoming a genuinely multistakeholder organization with a soft multistakeholder oversight model. But I also beleive that it is not quite there yet and is not ready yet for full responsibility of the IANA process. I see NTIA as the responsible adult in the room, and I see that responsibility as a holdover from the past. I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 08:39:54 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:39:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: hi, While I am in true confessions mode, I think today is my day for inviting attack. The fact that this thread calls itself NET NEUTRALITY and I have only spoken about AND MORE keeps tickling at me. [so to borrow an old time alt.newsgroup discussion list motif - donning my asbestos underwear, i venture forth] I admit that this is a term I considered overloaded, and while I have seen various efforts to try and untangle the term, I don't beleive any of the attempts at untangling has ever taken. So i find coherent conversations on the topic few and far between. Some of my simplistic yet contradictory impressions on the topic: I have no doubt that in terms of the technical implications, there needs to be preferred treatment for some traffic: i.a. control, system monitoring, routing etc. So the mechanisms for behaviors that thwart network neutrality are needed and will exist. In terms of one commercial outfit wanting to collect money when some other commercial outfit that uses its plant gains profit: I understand that being a problem for those who run corporations and beleive that making a profit for their investors is their responsibility. Why should the service provider suffer so that the content provider can rake it in? So some differential charging for content providers seems unavoidable, no mater how complex or problematic it might be. Some companies want to sell and some people/users/consumers want to buy better than best effort service for their gaming or streaming pleasure. From one perspective it seems reasonable. But it seems that this might be at the expense of the bandwidth/service available for best effort. Whenever there is a premium product, the standard product gets short shrift because they want people to buy the premium product: Marketing 102. But while I am not a fan of the so-called free market, I accept that the world I live in is populated mostly by people who do beleive in it. People want to sell what people want to buy and people want to make money. I might prefer it was otherwise, but that is the way it is. So it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. In terms of NGOs, people with small businesses and users with something to say/read/learn/share/inform, anything that moves the Internet away from the best universal best effort service harm peoples' rights to proper (for some definition of proper) access to the Internet. Net neutrality is a classic tussle of interests in an overloaded discussion. This is a problem that I beleive can only be solved by a continuous balancing of interests in an ongoing fully participatory mult-stakeholder process where these and the many other considerations I am ignoring in this short note, can be discussed and understanding can be developed. But first I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and actually agree on what we are talking about. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue May 28 08:58:19 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130528125819.GI18899@thorion.it.jyu.fi> On May 28 14:39, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > while I am not a fan of the so-called free market, I accept that the > world I live in is populated mostly by people who do beleive in it. > People want to sell what people want to buy and people want to make > money. Mostly agreed but for one thing, that needs at least a bit opening up: "People want to sell what people want to buy" The problem with this is that "what people want to buy" is not fixed, something sellers just react to. Today more than ever before, it's a question of making people want what you have to sell. Of course that's simplification, too; a bit better might be saying people want to make things that are easiest, or rather most profitable, to get other people want. In terms of net neutrality, this suggests that we should also think about who gets what kind of power to influence what people want. > In terms of NGOs, people with small businesses and users with > something to say/read/learn/share/inform, anything that moves the > Internet away from the best universal best effort service harm > peoples' rights to proper (for some definition of proper) access to > the Internet. Yes. And it will bias towards those who can pay most - that is, favour those who have most power (money) to begin with. Which is a rather natural tendency in ... more or less everything. But principles like net neutrality could be interpreted and used in a way to counterbalance that. Perhaps. > Net neutrality is a classic tussle of interests in an overloaded > discussion. This is a problem that I believe can only be solved by a > continuous balancing of interests in an ongoing fully participatory > multi-stakeholder process where these and the many other > considerations I am ignoring in this short note, can be discussed > and understanding can be developed. Yes. > But first I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and > actually agree on what we are talking about. I doubt that can be done, for the very meaning of the term is inextricably tangled in that conflict of interests. But by the same token, talking about its meaning would be essential in order to make the term useful at all. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue May 28 09:06:12 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:06:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <1759241512.296753.1369562760940.open-xchange@oxbagw17> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24076B0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1759241512.296753.1369562760940.open-xchange@oxbagw17> Message-ID: All, >From government perspective, it is the power to enforce that also gives them the power to institute the rules in the first place, some would say: indeed the authority/legitimacy to make public rules. Classically, it doesn't make any sense to ask governments to enforce rules that they didn't make or consent to, at national level --unless they have been defeated in a war or subjected to another government by power. It has been possible to make and enforce international rules only through wars/coercion or though cooperation amongst states. The concept of sovereignty was just one central tool for shaping the ground rules of such inter-state cooperation. Now networks, particularly electronic or computer networks, are a peculiar kind of objects. The old sovereignty concept was effective because there was an apparatus in place with the means to control territories (fight for and defend them from "foreign" excursions) which it succeeded doing more than any other entities. The rest was a matter of mutual recognition as a pre-requisite for long-lasting peace. With these electronic/computer networks, states are not at the helm. They were not initially in controlling position; networks related rules (protocols, standards and even technical policies with beyond-technical consequences) were made by engineers with the possible participation of businesses and any private citizens who have the knowledge and the access to contribute. As far as the Internet, one government (has) had a particular position due to the fact that it funded research that enabled the architecture of the super-network and its original protocols. As such it has had power to make decisions and sanction Internet rules which other governments did not have -- with the mere existence of that capacity/power, no doubt that government has had influence on which rules are possible which are not, even when they were not directly making the rules. In the mean time all the other states have discovered they have bargaining chips, that network transactions may be virtual in their form but they have physical-world consequences (which they think legitimate their intervention) and, most importantly, those transactions are enabled through physical points (the so-called "intermediaries"), the territorial coordinates of which are known hence, they can be subjected to control by virtue of the good old territorial sovereignty and public policy authority. Indeed, everybody is located somewhere and has to follow the law of the land. So governments want to reclaim the traditional role of state as the public policy authority for computer networks as well. Technical community and civil society are saying: "Not so fast; you need to recognize that we have a preeminent role to play here! At the very least, we need to do this together." But the fact is as long as the concept of law (the public, national law) is what it is, governments will have some basis to say: we are the first public policy-making authority; the fact is beyond technical standards, neither the technical community nor civil society are equipped to enforce any public rules over any citizenry or unaffiliated user groups; and the fact is, unless we reach a common understanding and agreement on the terms of the cooperation amongst all those heterogeneous actors (as homologous governments did in defining basic rules for international cooperation), the technical community may keep on building standards but many governments will just keep on blocking, censoring and cracking down on the violators of their rules within their grasp (namely among their citizenry). In other words, there won't be peace -- as once achieved in Westphalia. In itself, "respective roles" is not in my view much of the problem, for all those heterogeneous groups of actors do have different roles: CS, for instance, is not equipped to enforce any public rule, therefore its position on public rule-making authority scale may arguably be seen as lower than the government's; the technical community has preeminence in the day-to-day operation/management of the networks (as recognized by governments) so we may also recognize that governments have a specific/special role in public policy making --the difference is one is more opened for sound contributions from outside while the other tend to be closed, and that's what needs to change. What we are bargaining for here is this: 1) it is not because the government has public policy making and enforcement powers that it necessarily knows better than anyone else, particularly when it comes to the Internet, 2) as a result, government needs to listen to the other segments of the society and heed their expertise, contributions and will. In other words and following from point 1 above, all actors' views in the POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS should be considered equally, while they may still have different institutional roles, for instance, wrt the formal ADOPTION OF POLICY outcomes or instruments. This inclusive and even multistakeholder participation is a better way of governance not just as per democratic ideals, but also because it produces more efficient outcomes than governance (and public policy-making) by governments alone, both at home and internationally. The challenge is we're yet to define and implement the material mechanisms that will enable its application and which all actors will adhere to. It's all the more challenging since it requires a cultural shift in a world dominated in number by countries that don't have a tradition of consensus-driven policy-making. So we have a lot of talking to do, have to persuade, campaign, advocate, etc. and depend on governments' good will and maybe some dose of public shaming, etc. What the Internet is giving us the opportunity to do is to fundamentally change the terms of public governance in general, not just for the Internet (if only because everybody knows by now the impact the Internet can have on the (re-)distribution of power in a country.) Denying any notion or role differential in the Internet policy domain and rejecting related language I not the point; we are instead calling for a new compass where whatever the roles and the role differential, relationships are to be different. This is a deeper fight, and is going to be a longer one, I think. Mawaki On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds < peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote: > > John, > > The term "in their respective roles" stems from art. 49 Geneva Declaration > of Principles which was reiterated in art. 35 Tunis Declaration. > > There was a special sovereign right for development of public policy > accorded to states, not governments. Presumably, democratic states would > use democratic (multi-stakeholder) ways and processes to determine public > policies, whereas non-democratic states would be sovereign in how they do > their policy development, whether we like it if not. > > In order to come to international understandings, my interpretation is > that these sovereign states need to cooperate. If they follow the > interpretation of "enhanced cooperation" that is in use in the European > Union institutions, then a couple of like minded states could cooperate > even if their is no full consensus with all states. > > So, there was no recognition of international business or international > civil society to have a sovereign right in this sphere, although they are > invited to contribute in their own roles. > > Peter > > On 26.05.2013, at 11:22, "Roland Perry" > wrote: > > In message , at 12:14:32 > on Fri, 24 May 2013, John Curran writes > > > This brings up an excellent point... Has there been attempt to > elaborate the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in particular, > as to what that phrase actually means with respect to governments? > > > > I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to > all in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some additional > aspects which are unique to governments (such as enforcement.) An > elaboration of what is meant by "respective roles" may not lead to > agreement, but will certainly improve communication of the various > perspectives > > One distinct possibility is that it means "everyone is expected to their > day-job, in so far as it maps into the IG space", although it doesn't > exclude others from offering helpful advice. > > Also, don't forget self-regulatory enforcement, for example of IP Address > Policy, by organisations other than Governments. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue May 28 09:28:03 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:28:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with much of what Avri says here particularly the ideas about balance. What is needed to ensure net neutrality (however it is defined) are objective measurements and statistics. One of the biggest problems to defining net neutrality is we don’t have this. Most of the measurements we have are provided by commercial interests that are obviously not neutral. In order to get to a balanced Internet we need to define what measurements are needed and work towards finding ways to get them. We need a neutral party to measure and acquire data in IXPs then provide that data to regulators and civil society. In order to achieve balance we need data free from commercial bias. Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: May-28-13 5:40 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE hi, While I am in true confessions mode, I think today is my day for inviting attack. The fact that this thread calls itself NET NEUTRALITY and I have only spoken about AND MORE keeps tickling at me. [so to borrow an old time alt.newsgroup discussion list motif - donning my asbestos underwear, i venture forth] I admit that this is a term I considered overloaded, and while I have seen various efforts to try and untangle the term, I don't beleive any of the attempts at untangling has ever taken. So i find coherent conversations on the topic few and far between. Some of my simplistic yet contradictory impressions on the topic: I have no doubt that in terms of the technical implications, there needs to be preferred treatment for some traffic: i.a. control, system monitoring, routing etc. So the mechanisms for behaviors that thwart network neutrality are needed and will exist. In terms of one commercial outfit wanting to collect money when some other commercial outfit that uses its plant gains profit: I understand that being a problem for those who run corporations and beleive that making a profit for their investors is their responsibility. Why should the service provider suffer so that the content provider can rake it in? So some differential charging for content providers seems unavoidable, no mater how complex or problematic it might be. Some companies want to sell and some people/users/consumers want to buy better than best effort service for their gaming or streaming pleasure. From one perspective it seems reasonable. But it seems that this might be at the expense of the bandwidth/service available for best effort. Whenever there is a premium product, the standard product gets short shrift because they want people to buy the premium product: Marketing 102. But while I am not a fan of the so-called free market, I accept that the world I live in is populated mostly by people who do beleive in it. People want to sell what people want to buy and people want to make money. I might prefer it was otherwise, but that is the way it is. So it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. In terms of NGOs, people with small businesses and users with something to say/read/learn/share/inform, anything that moves the Internet away from the best universal best effort service harm peoples' rights to proper (for some definition of proper) access to the Internet. Net neutrality is a classic tussle of interests in an overloaded discussion. This is a problem that I beleive can only be solved by a continuous balancing of interests in an ongoing fully participatory mult-stakeholder process where these and the many other considerations I am ignoring in this short note, can be discussed and understanding can be developed. But first I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and actually agree on what we are talking about. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 09:55:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:25:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 04:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: > >> So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR? > Not sure what you mean by DOC origination. > > I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or to a intergovernmental institution. To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non action is simply another form of politics . My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on enhanced cooperation. (And we will know if US really is quite ready to had over power, as you say it is....) > I don't beleive that ICANN controls cIr, but rather that it control one form of names and has some influence over IP numbering, though by no means controlling inlfuence - talk to the RIRs about the control of numbers. > > As for ICANN it is in process of becoming a genuinely multistakeholder organization with a soft multistakeholder oversight model. But I also beleive that it is not quite there yet and is not ready yet for full responsibility of the IANA process. I see NTIA as the responsible adult in the room, How hurtful to the democratic dignity of all non US-ians !! And of course UN or a UN body is not a 'responsible adult'.... thanks so much, especially coming from a US citizen. > and I see that responsibility as a holdover from the past. Yes, the British told us, Indians, such things for a long time.... And now some right wing Hindu parties quote history to seek political supremacy, and corresponding subjugation of minority groups.... History is always very convenient to quote, especially since it is not around any more. To me, it is painful that US government is so openly credited with a legitimate 'historical role' in global IG by people of global civil society! What about UN's historical role in global governance, having seen us through so ably over the last many decades which saw such great progress in global prosperity, human rights and democracy. To what avail is all that! Do we really need to begin comparing US's global governance role in recent history with that of the UN? > I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, Alternatively, one may ask, why all post-democratic multistakeholder-ists do not participate in the much better established movements for furthering democracy - from local self governance to global governance, rather than posit non democratic alternatives, like relying on 'responsible adults', and proposing that big business should have an equal role as democratically elected governments and civil society in governance functions. parminder > the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > avri > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 28 09:58:14 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:58:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 14:39:54 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Avri Doria writes >I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and actually agree on what we are talking about. That would be useful. [I'll use the term "throttle" to mean "de-prioritise in the absence of any funds to make me change my mind".] Is NN about a delivery network throttling content unless the distant content-provider comes up with some specific extra funding for their traffic (over and above the normal peering/no-settlement basis trickling down from their ISP to the delivery network). Is NN about a delivery network throttling content unless the end user comes up with specific extra funding for content from that content provider. Is NN about a delivery network throttling its competitor's content (when that network is a multi-play offer, with its own pay-per-view content). Is NN about end users paying the same per byte for traffic delivered to a mobile phone as to a landline. In NN about some networks deciding (with or without a court order) that some content sites should not be delivered at all (eg Pirate Bay). Is NN about preventing the sending of email unless certain technical hoops are jumped through, that purport to fend off spammers. Is NN a way of defining "end to end", and hence means "no carrier grade NAT, thanks". Is NN a way for users to demand they get the same bytes-per-second throughput on their Internet connection at 8pm when all their fellow subscribers are saturating it with catch-up-TV, as they do at 8am when their fellow subscribers aren't. [nb. Not all answers have to be "yes", and not all answers have to be "no"]. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 10:07:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:37:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> 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> Message-ID: <213172CC-1D11-4514-83A6-CB207B8C18A6@hserus.net> Your proposal to write to the USG was discussed earlier I recall, but don't remember it getting enough consensus for such a decision to be taken. Minority perspective and all that, but I am sure some few caucus members in their individual capacity (though not me) might want to co sign an it4change letter to this effect Please don't speak for "us Indians" by the way. It might give people a rather wrong opinion on the current state of consensus even within india for this issue. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 19:25, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 04:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >> >>> So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR? >> Not sure what you mean by DOC origination. >> >> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or to a intergovernmental institution. > > To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non action is simply another form of politics . > > My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on enhanced cooperation. > > (And we will know if US really is quite ready to had over power, as you say it is....) > >> I don't beleive that ICANN controls cIr, but rather that it control one form of names and has some influence over IP numbering, though by no means controlling inlfuence - talk to the RIRs about the control of numbers. >> >> As for ICANN it is in process of becoming a genuinely multistakeholder organization with a soft multistakeholder oversight model. But I also beleive that it is not quite there yet and is not ready yet for full responsibility of the IANA process. I see NTIA as the responsible adult in the room, > > How hurtful to the democratic dignity of all non US-ians !! And of course UN or a UN body is not a 'responsible adult'.... thanks so much, especially coming from a US citizen. > >> and I see that responsibility as a holdover from the past. > > Yes, the British told us, Indians, such things for a long time.... And now some right wing Hindu parties quote history to seek political supremacy, and corresponding subjugation of minority groups.... History is always very convenient to quote, especially since it is not around any more. To me, it is painful that US government is so openly credited with a legitimate 'historical role' in global IG by people of global civil society! What about UN's historical role in global governance, having seen us through so ably over the last many decades which saw such great progress in global prosperity, human rights and democracy. To what avail is all that! Do we really need to begin comparing US's global governance role in recent history with that of the UN? > >> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, > > Alternatively, one may ask, why all post-democratic multistakeholder-ists do not participate in the much better established movements for furthering democracy - from local self governance to global governance, rather than posit non democratic alternatives, like relying on 'responsible adults', and proposing that big business should have an equal role as democratically elected governments and civil society in governance functions. > > parminder >> the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > > > >> avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 10:27:30 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:27:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> 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> Message-ID: <3D86D1F4-13D5-4BB9-B5D1-CE3E649F2E24@ella.com> On 28 May 2013, at 15:55, parminder wrote: > (And we will know if US really is quite ready to had over power, as you say it is....) Please do not misquote. I said I beleive that they want to, but it is not quite time because ICANN is not quite ready. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 11:08:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:38:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <3D86D1F4-13D5-4BB9-B5D1-CE3E649F2E24@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> <3D86D1F4-13D5-4BB9-B5D1-CE3E649F2E24@ella.com> Message-ID: <51A4C86C.7050600@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 07:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 28 May 2013, at 15:55, parminder wrote: > >> (And we will know if US really is quite ready to had over power, as you say it is....) > Please do not misquote. > > I said I beleive that they want to, but it is not quite time because ICANN is not quite ready. Ok, my apologies... you mean that US 'wants to' but think ICANN is not ready... And so entirely in global interest they are not ready to relinquish oversight power. That is fine, and does not change my arguments. Meanwhile, can we know how ICANN can be considered ready, and when they indeed are, to what kind of mechanism would the US willingly hand over oversight power. To know such things would for instance be immensely useful for the proceedings of the WGEC (working group on enhanced cooperation). parminder > > avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 11:13:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:43:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: <51A4C9AB.9040208@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 07:28 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 14:39:54 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Avri Doria writes > >> I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and actually agree on >> what we are talking about. > > That would be useful. I dont think there is any greater confusion about the meaning of the NN term that almost any subject of social legislation... NN regulation is enshrined in the law of a few countries, and can not really be unclear about what NN is. I am ready to take NN in the meaning in which US regulatory provisions take it. It is rather well defined there (a different matter that they decided not to extend NN regulation to wireless networks.) parminder > > [I'll use the term "throttle" to mean "de-prioritise in the absence of > any funds to make me change my mind".] > > Is NN about a delivery network throttling content unless the distant > content-provider comes up with some specific extra funding for their > traffic (over and above the normal peering/no-settlement basis > trickling down from their ISP to the delivery network). > > Is NN about a delivery network throttling content unless the end user > comes up with specific extra funding for content from that content > provider. > > Is NN about a delivery network throttling its competitor's content > (when that network is a multi-play offer, with its own pay-per-view > content). > > Is NN about end users paying the same per byte for traffic delivered > to a mobile phone as to a landline. > > In NN about some networks deciding (with or without a court order) > that some content sites should not be delivered at all (eg Pirate Bay). > > Is NN about preventing the sending of email unless certain technical > hoops are jumped through, that purport to fend off spammers. > > Is NN a way of defining "end to end", and hence means "no carrier > grade NAT, thanks". > > Is NN a way for users to demand they get the same bytes-per-second > throughput on their Internet connection at 8pm when all their fellow > subscribers are saturating it with catch-up-TV, as they do at 8am when > their fellow subscribers aren't. > > [nb. Not all answers have to be "yes", and not all answers have to be > "no"]. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 28 11:32:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:32:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> 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> Message-ID: <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > > On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: > > > I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon > > hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or > > to a intergovernmental institution. > > To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to > the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their > oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose > some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from > each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top > technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the > region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, > something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non > action is simply another form of politics . > > My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work > on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on > enhanced cooperation. Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 28 11:38:02 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:38:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A4C9AB.9040208@itforchange.net> 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> <51A4C9AB.9040208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <51A4C9AB.9040208 at itforchange.net>, at 20:43:47 on Tue, 28 May 2013, parminder writes >I am ready to take NN in the meaning in which US regulatory provisions >take it. It is rather well defined there Can you give us a brief summary? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 11:42:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:12:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: It might be a reasonable step if you get consensus from the caucus for such a letter and its text --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 21:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >> >>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>> to a intergovernmental institution. >> >> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >> action is simply another form of politics . >> >> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >> enhanced cooperation. > > Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with > a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in > particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of > institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 11:46:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:16:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4C9AB.9040208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51A4D15C.8070802@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:08 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <51A4C9AB.9040208 at itforchange.net>, at 20:43:47 on Tue, 28 > May 2013, parminder writes > >> I am ready to take NN in the meaning in which US regulatory >> provisions take it. It is rather well defined there > > Can you give us a brief summary? Yes, will do presently... Read it when it came out a year or two ago... parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 11:50:35 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:20:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> >> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >> action is simply another form of politics . >> >> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >> enhanced cooperation. > Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with > a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in > particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of > institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? Yes, entirely in order to ask them where they stand on this, and if they have any plans to ever relinquish oversight authority. Last time I heard, they were categorical, they wont give up what they call as their 'historical role'. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue May 28 12:04:54 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:04:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >> >>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>> to a intergovernmental institution. >> >> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >> action is simply another form of politics . >> >> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >> enhanced cooperation. > > Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with > a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in > particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of > institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? No, this would not be reasonable. Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue May 28 12:12:53 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:12:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> H, Just because I beleive it is the case, does not mean that it is the case. And certainly does not mean there is any formal policy anywhere that states this. And even if it were the case, why would they want to create a policy statement on it. If I were advising them, them I certainly would not recommend it. So in case people want to know why I think it is the case: - who wouldn't they want to get rid of it? In the daily crunch of important international issues this is just a burr. why deal with all this animosity from other governments etc for something of such relative unimportance in the world of global diplomacy. I mean I am an idiot savant who cares about this stuff passionately, but in general in the global scope of all the things about to blow up in this world, this is mighty small potatoes. - the Affirmation of Commitments is a big step as it essentially cuts the first third of the moorings. - 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. - Even within US internal policy, DOC-NTIA is leading the way on creating multi-stakeholder processes for stakeholders to develop policy recommendations on issues within their area. I really beleive that they are serious about this stuff. and being serous about this stuff would mean wanting to eventually divest themselves of the sole oversight responsibilities. - As a citizen of the US, I think we would be nuts not to want to get rid of this pain in the neck, but I understand why the US has a continuing stewardship requirement and I support that. I would prefer to look at it from the perspective that, if you assume that they would really prefer to shuck this burr, then what needs to happen to make doing that a reasonable thing to do. I am not in favor of a letter like this at this time as a formal instrument that they would have to deal with formally. avri On 28 May 2013, at 17:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >> >>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>> to a intergovernmental institution. >> >> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >> action is simply another form of politics . >> >> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >> enhanced cooperation. > > Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with > a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in > particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of > institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 12:15:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:45:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 for the caucus not having any apparent consensus on this issue Norbert and parminder might write in their individual capacities or those of the organizations they speak for, with additional caucus members that agree signing on in their personal capacities, if they are indeed interested in such a letter. I personally am, like bill, opposed to such a letter and would not sign on to it. Though as Bill points out there are a lot of other letters that need to be sent, bich I hope the caucus works on priority. Thanks --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 21:34, William Drake wrote: > > On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >>> >>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>>> to a intergovernmental institution. >>> >>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >>> action is simply another form of politics . >>> >>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >>> enhanced cooperation. >> >> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with >> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in >> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of >> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? > > > Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? > > No, this would not be reasonable. > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 28 12:20:51 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:20:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331AE1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Unfortunately I have to agree with Bill. First we should make our homework and to get back the high credibility the Caucus has achieved between 2003 and 2010 by delivering serious results which CONTRIBUTE in a constructive way to the global discussion from a civil society perspective. This is what we did in the past and this is what created the respect to members of the IGC. Other IG CS groups will take over this role soon of we do not start to reset button, avoind knfioghting and creating real output in form of input which can lead to impact. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Di 28.05.2013 18:04 An: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >> >>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>> to a intergovernmental institution. >> >> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >> action is simply another form of politics . >> >> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >> enhanced cooperation. > > Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with > a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in > particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of > institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? No, this would not be reasonable. Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 28 12:32:31 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:32:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> 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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> To whom, then? Why does it have to be to "somebody"? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >>> action is simply another form of politics . >>> >>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >>> enhanced cooperation. >> >> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with >> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in >> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of >> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? > > > Yes, entirely in order to ask them where they stand on this, and if they > have any plans to ever relinquish oversight authority. Last time I heard, > they were categorical, they wont give up what they call as their 'historical > role'. I asked them this (specifically if they had plans) at the last US-IGF, and the answer they (NTIA) gave was certainly not a categorical refusal, it was along the lines of continued evolution of the current arrangement, not revolution. I'm sure it was archived on video somewhere. Agree with Avri, Bill, Suresh, et.al. in that a letter at this time would not be productive. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 28 12:34:43 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:34:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: OFFLIST On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >>> >>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>>> to a intergovernmental institution. >>> >>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >>> action is simply another form of politics . >>> >>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >>> enhanced cooperation. >> >> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with >> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in >> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of >> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? > > > Under your able baton bada bing! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 12:44:20 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) tolerance. And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from simply being expressed. /A combination I dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this view/. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than its typical formulations. I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, history and context would be required to understand what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something that should never happen again. Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue May 28 12:50:17 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:50:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > > >> Parminder wrote: > >>> To whom, then? > > Why does it have to be to "somebody"? Exactly. ICANN needs 'oversight' in the sense that it should not be able to break laws, ignore its own rules, be corrupt, etc., but we don't need the US role supervising/second-guessing what goes into the root zone file and awarding the IANA contract. You shouldn't maintain and "give" to some other institution a pointless function. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 12:52:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:22:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of "single rooter". Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says something to the contrary when others read it. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > > Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > > Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) tolerance. > > And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than its typical formulations. > > I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, history and context would be required to understand what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something that should never happen again. > > Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > > As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 12:59:23 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A4E26B.3040503@gmail.com> This is not persuasive reasoning for me. Because UN or other processes are blocked the Steward Government should not be written to? I am not sure if this a procedural (as in the above q?) or a more substantive point. Can you clarify please? On 2013/05/28 07:04 PM, William Drake wrote: > On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>>> to a intergovernmental institution. >>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >>> action is simply another form of politics . >>> >>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >>> enhanced cooperation. >> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with >> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in >> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of >> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to? > > Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? > > No, this would not be reasonable. > > 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 Tue May 28 13:20:18 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:20:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> Who and where? If US, as per previous posts, you hold that the US laws are sufficient? Even if yes, would this be legitimate? Who would confer such legitimacy? DOC? On 2013/05/28 07:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ICANN needs 'oversight' -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue May 28 13:24:01 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 17:24:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Respective roles and responsibilities" (was Re: Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions Message-ID: I thought this discussion is suitable for another thread. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mawaki Chango Date: Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions To: Internet Governance , "Peter H. Hellmonds" All, >From government perspective, it is the power to enforce that also gives them the power to institute the rules in the first place, some would say: indeed the authority/legitimacy to make public rules. Classically, it doesn't make any sense to ask governments to enforce rules that they didn't make or consent to, at national level --unless they have been defeated in a war or subjected to another government by power. It has been possible to make and enforce international rules only through wars/coercion or though cooperation amongst states. The concept of sovereignty was just one central tool for shaping the ground rules of such inter-state cooperation. Now networks, particularly electronic or computer networks, are a peculiar kind of objects. The old sovereignty concept was effective because there was an apparatus in place with the means to control territories (fight for and defend them from "foreign" excursions) which it succeeded doing more than any other entities. The rest was a matter of mutual recognition as a pre-requisite for long-lasting peace. With these electronic/computer networks, states are not at the helm. They were not initially in controlling position; networks related rules (protocols, standards and even technical policies with beyond-technical consequences) were made by engineers with the possible participation of businesses and any private citizens who have the knowledge and the access to contribute. As far as the Internet, one government (has) had a particular position due to the fact that it funded research that enabled the architecture of the super-network and its original protocols. As such it has had power to make decisions and sanction Internet rules which other governments did not have -- with the mere existence of that capacity/power, no doubt that government has had influence on which rules are possible which are not, even when they were not directly making the rules. In the mean time all the other states have discovered they have bargaining chips, that network transactions may be virtual in their form but they have physical-world consequences (which they think legitimate their intervention) and, most importantly, those transactions are enabled through physical points (the so-called "intermediaries"), the territorial coordinates of which are known hence, they can be subjected to control by virtue of the good old territorial sovereignty and public policy authority. Indeed, everybody is located somewhere and has to follow the law of the land. So governments want to reclaim the traditional role of state as the public policy authority for computer networks as well. Technical community and civil society are saying: "Not so fast; you need to recognize that we have a preeminent role to play here! At the very least, we need to do this together." But the fact is as long as the concept of law (the public, national law) is what it is, governments will have some basis to say: we are the first public policy-making authority; the fact is beyond technical standards, neither the technical community nor civil society are equipped to enforce any public rules over any citizenry or unaffiliated user groups; and the fact is, unless we reach a common understanding and agreement on the terms of the cooperation amongst all those heterogeneous actors (as homologous governments did in defining basic rules for international cooperation), the technical community may keep on building standards but many governments will just keep on blocking, censoring and cracking down on the violators of their rules within their grasp (namely among their citizenry). In other words, there won't be peace -- as once achieved in Westphalia. In itself, "respective roles" is not in my view much of the problem, for all those heterogeneous groups of actors do have different roles: CS, for instance, is not equipped to enforce any public rule, therefore its position on public rule-making authority scale may arguably be seen as lower than the government's; the technical community has preeminence in the day-to-day operation/management of the networks (as recognized by governments) so we may also recognize that governments have a specific/special role in public policy making --the difference is one is more opened for sound contributions from outside while the other tend to be closed, and that's what needs to change. What we are bargaining for here is this: 1) it is not because the government has public policy making and enforcement powers that it necessarily knows better than anyone else, particularly when it comes to the Internet, 2) as a result, government needs to listen to the other segments of the society and heed their expertise, contributions and will. In other words and following from point 1 above, all actors' views in the POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS should be considered equally, while they may still have different institutional roles, for instance, wrt the formal ADOPTION OF POLICY outcomes or instruments. This inclusive and even multistakeholder participation is a better way of governance not just as per democratic ideals, but also because it produces more efficient outcomes than governance (and public policy-making) by governments alone, both at home and internationally. The challenge is we're yet to define and implement the material mechanisms that will enable its application and which all actors will adhere to. It's all the more challenging since it requires a cultural shift in a world dominated in number by countries that don't have a tradition of consensus-driven policy-making. So we have a lot of talking to do, have to persuade, campaign, advocate, etc. and depend on governments' good will and maybe some dose of public shaming, etc. What the Internet is giving us the opportunity to do is to fundamentally change the terms of public governance in general, not just for the Internet (if only because everybody knows by now the impact the Internet can have on the (re-)distribution of power in a country.) Denying any notion or role differential in the Internet policy domain and rejecting related language I not the point; we are instead calling for a new compass where whatever the roles and the role differential, relationships are to be different. This is a deeper fight, and is going to be a longer one, I think. Mawaki On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds < peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote: > > John, > > The term "in their respective roles" stems from art. 49 Geneva Declaration > of Principles which was reiterated in art. 35 Tunis Declaration. > > There was a special sovereign right for development of public policy > accorded to states, not governments. Presumably, democratic states would > use democratic (multi-stakeholder) ways and processes to determine public > policies, whereas non-democratic states would be sovereign in how they do > their policy development, whether we like it if not. > > In order to come to international understandings, my interpretation is > that these sovereign states need to cooperate. If they follow the > interpretation of "enhanced cooperation" that is in use in the European > Union institutions, then a couple of like minded states could cooperate > even if their is no full consensus with all states. > > So, there was no recognition of international business or international > civil society to have a sovereign right in this sphere, although they are > invited to contribute in their own roles. > > Peter > > On 26.05.2013, at 11:22, "Roland Perry" > wrote: > > In message , at 12:14:32 > on Fri, 24 May 2013, John Curran writes > > > This brings up an excellent point... Has there been attempt to > elaborate the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in particular, > as to what that phrase actually means with respect to governments? > > > > I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to > all in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some additional > aspects which are unique to governments (such as enforcement.) An > elaboration of what is meant by "respective roles" may not lead to > agreement, but will certainly improve communication of the various > perspectives > > One distinct possibility is that it means "everyone is expected to their > day-job, in so far as it maps into the IG space", although it doesn't > exclude others from offering helpful advice. > > Also, don't forget self-regulatory enforcement, for example of IP Address > Policy, by organisations other than Governments. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 13:46:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:16:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A4ED6C.9050900@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:34 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, This is an absolutely unacceptable level of brow beating of a co-coordinator.... Such a thing has never happened earlier... The caucus cannot function like this. Either co-cos issue a joint statement on this, or the appeals committee take a suo motto notice - whether there is a provision for this or not. And members who think either way should speak up. Let us fully discuss this. My view; few co-cos have done their work as diligently as Norbert did. But he failed to stay on the right side of 'political-correctness' of the dominant class of this list, in times when global IG landscape has become politically very hot, and things have gone bare knuckled... parminder > consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. > But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? > > No, this would not be reasonable. > > Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 13:52:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:22:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A4EEEB.4030607@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:34 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. What was this purpose, never to question US hegemony?? > But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? This is more blunt than i thought IGC participants would ever get about supporting US hegemony. Interesting, very interesting! Havent we so many times asked numerous UN agencies to explain themselves to us.. Isnt that what a civil society groups is all about... Seeking accountability, and asking the powerful to explain themselves. And here someone is making jokes about an effort to seek accountability, yes, asking a powerful entity to 'explain itself' to us, mere people/ public;... You used the right term. Well, we asked the Indians at the IGF to explain themselves to us on their CIRP proposal. And they did, thoroughly..... and many other such things.... But never the US, not even in its expressly global governance role... Only those developing countries, and their organisations. They can be asked to explain themselves, never the US. I dont even understand it, what to oppose it. parminder > > No, this would not be reasonable. > > 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 Tue May 28 13:57:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:57:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> 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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> Message-ID: <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of "single rooter". Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says something to the contrary when others read it. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) tolerance. And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than its typical formulations. I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, history and context would be required to understand what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something that should never happen again. Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 28 14:00:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:00:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A4EEEB.4030607@itforchange.net> 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> <51A4EEEB.4030607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:52 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:34 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a >> meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the >> consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable >> to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily >> he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it >> used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, >> consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003. > > > What was this purpose, never to question US hegemony?? Is letting the IANA contract and checking that the IANA followed its own processes in doing rootzone changes actually hegemony? > > >> But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it >> explain itself to you and Parminder? Seriously? > > > This is more blunt than i thought IGC participants would ever get about > supporting US hegemony. Interesting, very interesting! Havent we so many > times asked numerous UN agencies to explain themselves to us.. Isnt that > what a civil society groups is all about... Seeking accountability, and > asking the powerful to explain themselves. And here someone is making jokes > about an effort to seek accountability, yes, asking a powerful entity to > 'explain itself' to us, mere people/ public;... You used the right term. > > Well, we asked the Indians at the IGF to explain themselves to us on their > CIRP proposal. And they did, thoroughly..... and many other such things.... > But never the US, not even in its expressly global governance role... Only > those developing countries, and their organisations. They can be asked to > explain themselves, never the US. but I just told you I asked them last summer, and the answer was that they are in favor of continued evolution. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 28 14:03:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:33:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51A4F15E.1040507@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 10:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >>>> Parminder wrote: >>>>> To whom, then? >> Why does it have to be to "somebody"? > Exactly. ICANN needs 'oversight' in the sense that it should not be able to break laws, ignore its own rules, be corrupt, etc., but we don't need the US role supervising/second-guessing what goes into the root zone file and awarding the IANA contract. You shouldn't maintain and "give" to some other institution a pointless function. MIlton, Sorry, but you are just not clear. You say ICANN needs oversight - so that it is not able to break laws (whose laws, by the way) etc etc.... But then you say it is not about supervising root zone... Well, fine, I agree, ICANN should be able to make root zone changes without going for anyone's authorisation... However, as you seem to suggest, if they do it, or any other thing, in a way that is contrary to laws/ rules (also please answer who makes these laws/ rules) then 'some body' should be able to step in and stop ICANN from doing such 'wrongful' acts. Who should be able to do this - this is the big 'oversight question'. And contrary to what you want to make appear from your posting, you have not addressed this oversight question at all. To repeat you merely say, ICANN should not need any authorisation for making root zone changes. And I fully agree. But then you say ' ICANN needs 'oversight' in the sense that it should not be able to break laws, ignore its own rules, be corrupt, etc". But you say nothing about how this oversight will function, who will do it, how it will be done... These are the issues. Merely root zone authorisation or not isnt such a big issue. parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 14:32:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. --srs (iPad) On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" wrote: > I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE > > Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share that consensus. > > Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of "single rooter". > > Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says something to the contrary when others read it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > > Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > > Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) tolerance. > > And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than its typical formulations. > > I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, history and context would be required to understand what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something that should never happen again. > > Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > > As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 28 15:41:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:41:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Who and where? > If US, as per previous posts, you hold that the US laws are sufficient? > Even if yes, would this be legitimate? Who would confer such legitimacy? > DOC? At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet resources become illegitimate? Certainly, one can't argue that in a completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point in its evolution. Can you name that point? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 28 16:01:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:01:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> 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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of people who generally agree but don't post much. Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just > as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. > > I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular > opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > > I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions > > concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as > > a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may > > simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > > Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET > > NEUTRALITY AND MORE > > Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is > > emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD > > economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate > > justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate > > because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that > > has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who > > would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology > > like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get > > this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya > > and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of > > "single rooter". > > > > Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's > > personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of > > scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least > > that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says > > something to the contrary when others read it. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > > On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN > > processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we > > will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over > > ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > > > > Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is > > political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it > > is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is > > not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as > > Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is > > ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > > > > Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the > > complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single > > rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the > > tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) > > diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) > > tolerance. > > > > And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be > > sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, > > those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously > > sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from > > simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too > > coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this > > view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am > > not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. > > It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than > > its typical formulations. > > > > I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You > > see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective > > of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society > > representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, > > history and context would be required to understand what is > > happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose > > one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised > > technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something > > that should never happen again. > > > > Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the > > co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, > > because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil > > turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply > > concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > > > > As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness > > (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to > > coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's > > actions can then be put in the appropriate context > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 18:09:17 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 01:09:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.com> I am sure there are many views. In an evolutionary system this is important. But there is the issue of both a butterfly in the Amazon causing a tornado in China through to determined causation. Let me be long duree about this, when we (various groups) became aware of our condition of regulation without representation. Will that do? Or perhaps not. Preps for WSIS and post may be more appropriate, when specific concerns were raised and resulted largely in IGF and Enhanced Cooperation. And this claim is not such a big deal. When some countries became aware of the horror of war crimes, they set rules. Even if there were none de jure to deal with the terrible holocaust for instance. In more recent times, pollution was mostly territorial. Now there is increasing global recognition of a commons of sorts that needs dealing with from CFCs through to CO2. Elements of national activities have often been transnationalised or multilateralised, with the PSTN or radio spectrum, etc moving to legitimate or legitimated structures. So on climate change (whether one accepts the proposition or not is moot as it is the analogy that is important) the issue is that because hundreds of years of emissions by the rich countries has resulted in global warming that the rich countries should carry the burden of sorting it out. This is precisely not the case. The rich countries will not agree unless the large developing countries also agree. So on a negative externality, we must share the burden. But when it is a positive externality like the internet then similar standards of responsibility do not apply. The same story applies to intellectual property rights - rich countries can use flexibilities but poor countries can't. The discourse fits into a pattern so familiar to the third world that one would have to be blind not to see it because of its repetition. But let me not stop here. Because politically the point is that one can't interfere with CIR cos it will break the internet. Even arguments about legitmated control over current structures was not and is not acceptable. This point was well covered in our discussion on Internationalisation with MM and others, and bears reference here. This was not a reasonable position, but succeeded nevertheless. The issue of legitimacy can be confounded. Your sequence runs from legitimate US control to illegitimate US control. But bear in mind that it can run differently, illegitmate control can be made legitimate, for instance when you said even I could be a single rooter on some definition. History is a good guide, but one must not take origins too seriously if the facts/context change - the institution of slavery was continued in the then to be established US by men escaping Europe who wanted to be free - oxymoronic or not? When did it become illegitimate? Hard to say. One gets the feeling now that it is even hard to imagine how it could ever be legitimate, no? But this is too much detail. The point is that we (I assume Parminder here, but not necessarily) simply do not decisions taken that affect us without legitimate representation. This is not about liberty (liberty and democracy being movements that are conflated as intellectual movements when they are contingent on the particular circumstances of Europe) but about democracy - equality and participation of the people in decisions. When did this democratic claim become legitimate? Hard to say, but when asserted then it takes on a life of its own - something attested to by ICANN's very own GAC. So the relevant jingle for this diatribe is, no internet regulation without representation. And the key point about using an evolutionary approach is fecundity and selection. Institutional fecundity seems to be limited by hegemonic practices of US and its delegated agencies etc. MS governance is an institutional innovation being trumped, but the same cannot be said for CIR. Being committed to evolution is a qualitative question that involves multiple avenues of causation from accident to intentional action within its context. Anything less is like making this dynamic process as exciting and distracting as growing ones hair. On 2013/05/28 10:41 PM, McTim wrote: > Riaz, > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Who and where? >> If US, as per previous posts, you hold that the US laws are sufficient? >> Even if yes, would this be legitimate? Who would confer such legitimacy? >> DOC? > At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet > resources become illegitimate? Certainly, one can't argue that in a > completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG > role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point > in its evolution. Can you name that point? > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 28 18:18:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 01:18:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook is waging a censorship war against moms of autistic children Message-ID: <51A52D40.8040003@gmail.com> From Natural News: Dear NaturalNews readers, Facebook is waging a censorship war against *moms of autistic children* who protest GMOs. We caught 'em over the weekend running a network-wide censorship campaign which was obviously protecting the interests of Monsanto. Check out our *exclusive interview* with one of the moms who was targeted by Facebook's censorship scheme: http://www.naturalnews.com/040521_Facebook_censorship_autism.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 19:38:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> And equally by minority points having made the same effort. Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize. But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to such a compromise position / middle ground, --srs (iPad) On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: > If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a > majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be possible > to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There might > sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to have only > a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of people who > generally agree but don't post much. > > Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by any > means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are determined by > only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough consensus process > is explicitly based on first having made a serious attempt to > accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just >> as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. >> >> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular >> opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" >> wrote: >> >>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions >>> concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as >>> a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may >>> simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… M >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh >>> Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET >>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE >>> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is >>> emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD >>> economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate >>> justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate >>> because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that >>> has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who >>> would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology >>> like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get >>> this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya >>> and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of >>> "single rooter". >>> >>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's >>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of >>> scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least >>> that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says >>> something to the contrary when others read it. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN >>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we >>> will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over >>> ICANN's narrow bit of turf. >>> >>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is >>> political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it >>> is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is >>> not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as >>> Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is >>> ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. >>> >>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the >>> complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single >>> rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the >>> tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) >>> diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) >>> tolerance. >>> >>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be >>> sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, >>> those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously >>> sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from >>> simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too >>> coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this >>> view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am >>> not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. >>> It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than >>> its typical formulations. >>> >>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You >>> see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective >>> of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society >>> representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, >>> history and context would be required to understand what is >>> happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose >>> one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised >>> technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something >>> that should never happen again. >>> >>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the >>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, >>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil >>> turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply >>> concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. >>> >>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness >>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to >>> coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's >>> actions can then be put in the appropriate context >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue May 28 19:41:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 05:11:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56AAE7CC-7D0D-48F9-81E1-150502C8EE78@hserus.net> Riaz, I find it a bit strange that you say decisions get taken without adequate representation, but please correct me if I am wrong, how many ICANN meetings have you attended and/or used their other participation mechanisms? If the answer is none, then how do you then argue no representation? --srs (iPad) On 29-May-2013, at 3:39, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > I am sure there are many views. In an evolutionary system this is important. But there is the issue of both a butterfly in the Amazon causing a tornado in China through to determined causation. > > Let me be long duree about this, when we (various groups) became aware of our condition of regulation without representation. Will that do? > > Or perhaps not. Preps for WSIS and post may be more appropriate, when specific concerns were raised and resulted largely in IGF and Enhanced Cooperation. > > And this claim is not such a big deal. When some countries became aware of the horror of war crimes, they set rules. Even if there were none de jure to deal with the terrible holocaust for instance. In more recent times, pollution was mostly territorial. Now there is increasing global recognition of a commons of sorts that needs dealing with from CFCs through to CO2. Elements of national activities have often been transnationalised or multilateralised, with the PSTN or radio spectrum, etc moving to legitimate or legitimated structures. So on climate change (whether one accepts the proposition or not is moot as it is the analogy that is important) the issue is that because hundreds of years of emissions by the rich countries has resulted in global warming that the rich countries should carry the burden of sorting it out. This is precisely not the case. The rich countries will not agree unless the large developing countries also agree. So on a negative externality, we must share the burden. But when it is a positive externality like the internet then similar standards of responsibility do not apply. The same story applies to intellectual property rights - rich countries can use flexibilities but poor countries can't. The discourse fits into a pattern so familiar to the third world that one would have to be blind not to see it because of its repetition. > > But let me not stop here. Because politically the point is that one can't interfere with CIR cos it will break the internet. Even arguments about legitmated control over current structures was not and is not acceptable. This point was well covered in our discussion on Internationalisation with MM and others, and bears reference here. This was not a reasonable position, but succeeded nevertheless. > > The issue of legitimacy can be confounded. Your sequence runs from legitimate US control to illegitimate US control. But bear in mind that it can run differently, illegitmate control can be made legitimate, for instance when you said even I could be a single rooter on some definition. History is a good guide, but one must not take origins too seriously if the facts/context change - the institution of slavery was continued in the then to be established US by men escaping Europe who wanted to be free - oxymoronic or not? When did it become illegitimate? Hard to say. One gets the feeling now that it is even hard to imagine how it could ever be legitimate, no? > > But this is too much detail. The point is that we (I assume Parminder here, but not necessarily) simply do not decisions taken that affect us without legitimate representation. This is not about liberty (liberty and democracy being movements that are conflated as intellectual movements when they are contingent on the particular circumstances of Europe) but about democracy - equality and participation of the people in decisions. When did this democratic claim become legitimate? Hard to say, but when asserted then it takes on a life of its own - something attested to by ICANN's very own GAC. So the relevant jingle for this diatribe is, no internet regulation without representation. > > And the key point about using an evolutionary approach is fecundity and selection. Institutional fecundity seems to be limited by hegemonic practices of US and its delegated agencies etc. MS governance is an institutional innovation being trumped, but the same cannot be said for CIR. Being committed to evolution is a qualitative question that involves multiple avenues of causation from accident to intentional action within its context. Anything less is like making this dynamic process as exciting and distracting as growing ones hair. > > > On 2013/05/28 10:41 PM, McTim wrote: >> Riaz, >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> Who and where? >>> If US, as per previous posts, you hold that the US laws are sufficient? >>> Even if yes, would this be legitimate? Who would confer such legitimacy? >>> DOC? >> At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet >> resources become illegitimate? Certainly, one can't argue that in a >> completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG >> role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point >> in its evolution. Can you name that point? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 28 19:45:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:45:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.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> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > I am sure there are many views. I am just curious about yours. > The issue of legitimacy can be confounded. Your sequence runs from > legitimate US control to illegitimate US control. It was not I who claimed the US role was illegitimate, but I allowed that it was to pose the query for which I would appreciate a direct answer. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue May 28 22:50:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] Message-ID: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> Dear All, Could members of ISOC Pakistan or affiliates of ISOC Pakistan who are within the IGC please contact me offlist? Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Wed May 29 03:09:45 2013 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:09:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> References: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala, At present, there is no ISOC Pakistan.Please be informed that the Internet Society Pakistan Chapter went under a community driven rejuvenation process started in mid-2011. Presently, the community members are in process of forming city based chapter(s) in Pakistan. One of the community efforts to form Internet Society Pakistan Islamabad chapter is in final steps of chartership. However, several global / individual members of the Internet Society from Pakistan are actively involved with the IGC. Best regards,Naveed HaqChapter Development Manager, Asia-PacificInternet Society> From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:27 +1200 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] > > Dear All, > > Could members of ISOC Pakistan or affiliates of ISOC Pakistan who are within the IGC please contact me offlist? > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 29 03:46:06 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:46:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> <51A52B0D.2010100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A5B23E.9030604@gmail.com> Ah, you want a date? Social Sciences are notoriously difficult to periodise, particularly because of the second law of dialects. But I have replied. Personally I was a late bloomer on realising this undemocratic core. I would say WSIS. But this is personal rather than an analytic. Kinda like a cow waking up one day realising it has been eating grass. Yes I am sure you have to be careful about any intimation about the illegitimacy of the current regime, and was not imputing it to you. I will try to be more careful. I should know as I have gotten to know Hegemonic Civil Society on this list and their sensitivities rather well. I was merely pointing out that evolution and dynamics of systems are complex and messy. Hope this helps. BTW nice to see the alternate line of inquiry that this is US invested resources. Seems more rational than what single rooters put up, so perhaps these arguments can be made with more decorum than those were... On 2013/05/29 02:45 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> I am sure there are many views. > > I am just curious about yours. > > > > >> The issue of legitimacy can be confounded. Your sequence runs from >> legitimate US control to illegitimate US control. > It was not I who claimed the US role was illegitimate, but I allowed > that it was to pose the query for which I would appreciate a direct > answer. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 29 04:11:10 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:11:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 15:41:58 on Tue, 28 May 2013, McTim writes >At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet >resources become illegitimate? Certainly, one can't argue that in a >completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG >role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point >in its evolution. Can you name that point? I don't like the word "illegitimate" in this context, but the landscape has indeed evolved and roles have changed, and so that we don't repeat earlier mistakes it's important to have a sense of history. This was one of the milestones (tender document for InterNIC) which saw the Internet tangibly move away from the USG, but as we know it was far from being a clean break: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1992/nsf9224/nsf9224.txt -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 29 04:26:01 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:26:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <51A4D24B.6020405@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2410530@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51A4E752.8070104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A5BB99.3000002@gmail.com> RP Thanks for this, and the link. I am not worried about containers and their labels, it is the content. Call it what you like, increasing democracy, improving relationships, MS, or whatever... the problem is that even on these formulations there is not simultaneous possibility of engaging in such a transformative process that recognises the 'other'... you can play, as long as you play nice with ICANN or other US interests. Power I can deal with if there is space for some contestability. On this list I am afraid, forget political action, despite Norbert's efforts, a lot still needs to be done for working with the established TW perspective (by this I mean the loose network of post colonials). But hey if it makes things happen, why not because it is change we are interested in. Curran was excellent when he responded regarding how he saw the evolution of the system. I was surprised, very in fact. And there was a sophistication not present in much of what shapes discourse on this list. Perhaps more of this will come through... I am sure that most of TW will go for reforms that are meaningful even if incremental. But it is important for people to understand that it is a democratic choice not to participate in processes as well. One cannot even get reasonable engagement (much better after Norbert) even if one concedes the great work that current arrangements allow. We are put on the treadmill like hamsters justifying old positions and repeating them, while new arguments are tested on us as if we were guinea pigs to see how we respond, when illegitimacy as an issue is a non-issue. I do not know how to explain how callous this sounds to my third world sensibility. So yours is a refreshing interlude and hope you can both push this and take us as chip on shoulder muppets, but without malice! Thanks so much! On 2013/05/29 11:11 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , > at 15:41:58 on Tue, 28 May 2013, McTim writes >> At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet >> resources become illegitimate? Certainly, one can't argue that in a >> completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG >> role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point >> in its evolution. Can you name that point? > > I don't like the word "illegitimate" in this context, but the > landscape has indeed evolved and roles have changed, and so that we > don't repeat earlier mistakes it's important to have a sense of history. > > This was one of the milestones (tender document for InterNIC) which > saw the Internet tangibly move away from the USG, but as we know it > was far from being a clean break: > > http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1992/nsf9224/nsf9224.txt > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Wed May 29 05:34:07 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:34:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Naveed, Many thanks for updates on the subject. Sala, this is the present situation of ISOC in Pakistan Thanks & regards On Wednesday, 29 May 2013, Naveed haq wrote: > Dear Sala, > > > > At present, there is no ISOC Pakistan. > > Please be informed that the Internet Society Pakistan Chapter went under a community driven rejuvenation process started in mid-2011. ****** > > Presently, the community members are in process of forming city based chapter(s) in Pakistan. One of the community efforts to form > > Internet Society Pakistan Islamabad chapter is in final steps of chartership. > > However, several global / individual members of the Internet Society from Pakistan are actively involved with the IGC. > > > > Best regards,**** > > Naveed Haq > > Chapter Development Manager, Asia-Pacific > > Internet Society > > > From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');> > > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:27 +1200 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> > > Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] > > > > Dear All, > > > > Could members of ISOC Pakistan or affiliates of ISOC Pakistan who are > within the IGC please contact me offlist? > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 29 06:16:23 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:16:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> Message-ID: Kerry I agree about metrics. But metrics are essentially proxies. There is an economics type academic imperialism, that the complex world can be rendered into measurements. On the one hand there are issues that are tractable. And issues that are not tractable. As long as this is kept in mind, it will contribute to the discourse. One need only look at employment stats in the US to get the point. They measure who has worked + making no distinction between full time work and someone who has worked an hour in a week. There is a huge difference, and this needs to be borne in mind. Riaz On 28 May 2013 16:28, Kerry Brown wrote: > I agree with much of what Avri says here particularly the ideas about > balance. What is needed to ensure net neutrality (however it is defined) > are objective measurements and statistics. One of the biggest problems to > defining net neutrality is we don’t have this. Most of the measurements we > have are provided by commercial interests that are obviously not neutral. > In order to get to a balanced Internet we need to define what measurements > are needed and work towards finding ways to get them. We need a neutral > party to measure and acquire data in IXPs then provide that data to > regulators and civil society. In order to achieve balance we need data free > from commercial bias.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry Brown**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* May-28-13 5:40 AM > *To:* IGC > *Subject:* Re: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE**** > > ** ** > > > hi, > > While I am in true confessions mode, I think today is my day for inviting > attack. > > The fact that this thread calls itself NET NEUTRALITY and I have only > spoken about AND MORE keeps tickling at me. > > [so to borrow an old time alt.newsgroup discussion list motif - donning my > asbestos underwear, i venture forth] > > I admit that this is a term I considered overloaded, and while I have seen > various efforts to try and untangle the term, I don't beleive any of the > attempts at untangling has ever taken. So i find coherent conversations > on the topic few and far between. > > Some of my simplistic yet contradictory impressions on the topic: > > I have no doubt that in terms of the technical implications, there needs > to be preferred treatment for some traffic: i.a. control, system > monitoring, routing etc. So the mechanisms for behaviors that thwart > network neutrality are needed and will exist. > > In terms of one commercial outfit wanting to collect money when some other > commercial outfit that uses its plant gains profit: I understand that being > a problem for those who run corporations and beleive that making a profit > for their investors is their responsibility. Why should the service > provider suffer so that the content provider can rake it in? So some > differential charging for content providers seems unavoidable, no mater how > complex or problematic it might be. > > Some companies want to sell and some people/users/consumers want to buy > better than best effort service for their gaming or streaming pleasure. > From one perspective it seems reasonable. But it seems that this might be > at the expense of the bandwidth/service available for best effort. > Whenever there is a premium product, the standard product gets short shrift > because they want people to buy the premium product: Marketing 102. But > while I am not a fan of the so-called free market, I accept that the world > I live in is populated mostly by people who do beleive in it. People want > to sell what people want to buy and people want to make money. I might > prefer it was otherwise, but that is the way it is. So it is a problem that > needs to be dealt with. > > In terms of NGOs, people with small businesses and users with something to > say/read/learn/share/inform, anything that moves the Internet away from > the best universal best effort service harm peoples' rights to proper (for > some definition of proper) access to the Internet. > > Net neutrality is a classic tussle of interests in an overloaded > discussion. This is a problem that I beleive can only be solved by a > continuous balancing of interests in an ongoing fully participatory > mult-stakeholder process where these and the many other considerations I am > ignoring in this short note, can be discussed and understanding can be > developed. But first I think we need unpack the term Net Neutrality and > actually agree on what we are talking about. > > avri > > > > > > > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 29 06:24:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:24:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> 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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> I was talking about the rough consensus process defined in the Charter. In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming majority” prevails over the minority / dissenting view. This is balanced by the rule that first a serious attempt at trying to reach a compromise must have been made: “Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view.” Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > And equally by minority points having made the same effort. > Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize. > > But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre > uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to > such a compromise position / middle ground, > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a > > majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be > > possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There > > might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to > > have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of > > people who generally agree but don't post much. > > > > Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by > > any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are > > determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough > > consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a > > serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 > > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > > >> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are > >> just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. > >> > >> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular > >> opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions > >>> concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS > >>> as a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a > >>> "majority" may simply be louder and more persistent/insistent > >>> voices… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > >>> Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET > >>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE > >>> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is > >>> emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD > >>> economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate > >>> justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate > >>> because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that > >>> has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who > >>> would be rather careful and specific in not coining new > >>> phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and > >>> you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in > >>> Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your > >>> definition of "single rooter". > >>> > >>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's > >>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of > >>> scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At > >>> least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the > >>> charter says something to the contrary when others read it. > >>> > >>> --srs (iPad) > >>> > >>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN > >>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we > >>> will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over > >>> ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > >>> > >>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is > >>> political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it > >>> is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is > >>> not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as > >>> Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is > >>> ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > >>> > >>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of > >>> the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the > >>> single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I > >>> find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to > >>> ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I > >>> say it) tolerance. > >>> > >>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be > >>> sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, > >>> those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously > >>> sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from > >>> simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too > >>> coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from > >>> this view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair > >>> when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda > >>> curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and > >>> empathic than its typical formulations. > >>> > >>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You > >>> see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective > >>> of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society > >>> representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, > >>> history and context would be required to understand what is > >>> happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose > >>> one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised > >>> technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something > >>> that should never happen again. > >>> > >>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the > >>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, > >>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the > >>> devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply > >>> concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > >>> > >>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness > >>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable > >>> to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's > >>> actions can then be put in the appropriate context > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 29 06:37:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:07:10 +0530 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: <51A5DA56.5070307@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > H, > > Just because I beleive it is the case, does not mean that it is the case. And certainly does not mean there is any formal policy anywhere that states this. > > And even if it were the case, why would they want to create a policy statement on it. If I were advising them, them I certainly would not recommend it. Things are getting ever more astonishing! Or maybe I am missing something here. But this passes my understanding. parminder > > So in case people want to know why I think it is the case: > > - who wouldn't they want to get rid of it? In the daily crunch of important international issues this is just a burr. why deal with all this animosity from other governments etc for something of such relative unimportance in the world of global diplomacy. I mean I am an idiot savant who cares about this stuff passionately, but in general in the global scope of all the things about to blow up in this world, this is mighty small potatoes. > > - the Affirmation of Commitments is a big step as it essentially cuts the first third of the moorings. > > - 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. > > - Even within US internal policy, DOC-NTIA is leading the way on creating multi-stakeholder processes for stakeholders to develop policy recommendations on issues within their area. I really beleive that they are serious about this stuff. and being serous about this stuff would mean wanting to eventually divest themselves of the sole oversight responsibilities. > > - As a citizen of the US, I think we would be nuts not to want to get rid of this pain in the neck, but I understand why the US has a continuing stewardship requirement and I support that. > > I would prefer to look at it from the perspective that, if you assume that they would really prefer to shuck this burr, then what needs to happen to make doing that a reasonable thing to do. > > I am not in favor of a letter like this at this time as a formal instrument that they would have to deal with formally. > > avri > > > > On 28 May 2013, at 17:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote: >>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon >>>> hand the responsibilities over. Just not to another governments or >>>> to a intergovernmental institution. >>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to >>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their >>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose >>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from >>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top >>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the >>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, >>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non >>> action is simply another form of politics . >>> >>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work >>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on >>> enhanced cooperation. >> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with >> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in >> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of >> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed May 29 06:45:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:15:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <70E8BDFE-1E6C-4763-81F2-CD8A308C0ABD@hserus.net> Yes Norbert, it is a concept I am familiar with. But there's such a thing as the minority point of view making much the same 'serious effort' to achieve consensus, if we are not to end up with the tale of the camel (or minority point of view) and the bedouin (or majority point of view) in his (consensual) tent on a cold night. The bedouin did make a serious and well intentioned attempt to accomodate the minority point of view, if you remember the tale - and it ended with him being left out in the cold. --srs (iPad) On 29-May-2013, at 15:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I was talking about the rough consensus process defined in the Charter. > > In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming majority” > prevails over the minority / dissenting view. > > This is balanced by the rule that first a serious attempt at trying to > reach a compromise must have been made: “Rough consensus can only be > called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority > points of view.” > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530 > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> And equally by minority points having made the same effort. >> Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize. >> >> But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre >> uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to >> such a compromise position / middle ground, >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a >>> majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be >>> possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There >>> might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to >>> have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of >>> people who generally agree but don't post much. >>> >>> Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by >>> any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are >>> determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough >>> consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a >>> serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 >>> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : >>> >>>> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are >>>> just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. >>>> >>>> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular >>>> opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions >>>>> concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS >>>>> as a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a >>>>> "majority" may simply be louder and more persistent/insistent >>>>> voices… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh >>>>> Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET >>>>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE >>>>> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is >>>>> emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD >>>>> economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate >>>>> justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate >>>>> because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that >>>>> has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who >>>>> would be rather careful and specific in not coining new >>>>> phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and >>>>> you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in >>>>> Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your >>>>> definition of "single rooter". >>>>> >>>>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's >>>>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of >>>>> scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At >>>>> least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the >>>>> charter says something to the contrary when others read it. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN >>>>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we >>>>> will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over >>>>> ICANN's narrow bit of turf. >>>>> >>>>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is >>>>> political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it >>>>> is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is >>>>> not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as >>>>> Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is >>>>> ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. >>>>> >>>>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of >>>>> the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the >>>>> single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I >>>>> find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to >>>>> ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I >>>>> say it) tolerance. >>>>> >>>>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be >>>>> sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, >>>>> those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously >>>>> sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from >>>>> simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too >>>>> coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from >>>>> this view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair >>>>> when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda >>>>> curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and >>>>> empathic than its typical formulations. >>>>> >>>>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You >>>>> see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective >>>>> of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society >>>>> representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, >>>>> history and context would be required to understand what is >>>>> happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose >>>>> one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised >>>>> technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something >>>>> that should never happen again. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the >>>>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, >>>>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the >>>>> devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply >>>>> concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. >>>>> >>>>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness >>>>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable >>>>> to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's >>>>> actions can then be put in the appropriate context >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 29 07:18:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:18:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <70E8BDFE-1E6C-4763-81F2-CD8A308C0ABD@hserus.net> 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> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> <70E8BDFE-1E6C-4763-81F2-CD8A308C0ABD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130529131849.06037465@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh, of course the bedouin in that story [1] was a fool. [1] http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html Of course I am not suggesting that in a consensus or rough consensus process, holders of a majority viewpoint should agree to something that they are in actual reality opposed to. Seeking to accommodate the minority point of view just means to try to find a wording that is acceptable from both perspectives. A rough consensus call is possible only after that has been tried unsuccessfully. On some (perhaps most) issues we will not reach consensus and not reach rough consensus either. That's ok. IGC is supposed to “provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes”. (That's from the mission statement in the IGC Charter.) The concept of a “forum” implies accommodating and supporting a plurality of civil society agendas. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Yes Norbert, it is a concept I am familiar with. > > But there's such a thing as the minority point of view making much > the same 'serious effort' to achieve consensus, if we are not to end > up with the tale of the camel (or minority point of view) and the > bedouin (or majority point of view) in his (consensual) tent on a > cold night. > > The bedouin did make a serious and well intentioned attempt to > accomodate the minority point of view, if you remember the tale - and > it ended with him being left out in the cold. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-May-2013, at 15:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > I was talking about the rough consensus process defined in the > > Charter. > > > > In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming > > majority” prevails over the minority / dissenting view. > > > > This is balanced by the rule that first a serious attempt at trying > > to reach a compromise must have been made: “Rough consensus can > > only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate > > minority points of view.” > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530 > > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > > >> And equally by minority points having made the same effort. > >> Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize. > >> > >> But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre > >> uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to > >> such a compromise position / middle ground, > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a > >>> majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be > >>> possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There > >>> might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to > >>> have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of > >>> people who generally agree but don't post much. > >>> > >>> Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by > >>> any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are > >>> determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough > >>> consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a > >>> serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 > >>> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >>> > >>>> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are > >>>> just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. > >>>> > >>>> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular > >>>> opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. > >>>> > >>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>> > >>>> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated > >>>>> assertions concerning majority and minority opinions on this > >>>>> list (or in CS as a whole… Could it be that what you are > >>>>> considering a "majority" may simply be louder and more > >>>>> persistent/insistent voices… M From: > >>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of > >>>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET > >>>>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE Riaz, there is a minority that appears > >>>>> against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the > >>>>> USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a > >>>>> minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the > >>>>> majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share > >>>>> that consensus. Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical > >>>>> and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather > >>>>> careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like > >>>>> "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get > >>>>> this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, > >>>>> Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your > >>>>> definition of "single rooter". > >>>>> > >>>>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's > >>>>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor > >>>>> of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At > >>>>> least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the > >>>>> charter says something to the contrary when others read it. > >>>>> > >>>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>>> > >>>>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN > >>>>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance > >>>>> we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control > >>>>> over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > >>>>> > >>>>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point > >>>>> is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal > >>>>> that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control > >>>>> over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed > >>>>> perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks > >>>>> being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of > >>>>> the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the > >>>>> single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally > >>>>> I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to > >>>>> ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare > >>>>> I say it) tolerance. > >>>>> > >>>>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to > >>>>> be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic > >>>>> perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who > >>>>> have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third > >>>>> Worldist views from simply being expressed. A combination I > >>>>> dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy > >>>>> to be dissuaded from this view. As the African proverb goes, > >>>>> you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is > >>>>> the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if > >>>>> it were more refined and empathic than its typical > >>>>> formulations. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. > >>>>> You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the > >>>>> perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil > >>>>> society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single > >>>>> rooters, history and context would be required to understand > >>>>> what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine > >>>>> that chose one particular version and in effect declined or > >>>>> marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as > >>>>> unfeasible is something that should never happen again. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the > >>>>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, > >>>>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the > >>>>> devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are > >>>>> simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > >>>>> > >>>>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness > >>>>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable > >>>>> to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as > >>>>> Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed May 29 07:31:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:01:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130529131849.06037465@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> <70E8BDFE-1E6C-4763-81F2-CD8A308C0ABD@hserus.net> <20130529131849.06037465@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: We do have open dialog here and transparent processes. However there appear to be clear lines drawn on some issues where ideological or other reasons make consensus difficult. Which doesn't quite contradict what you point out, of course. --srs (iPad) On 29-May-2013, at 16:48, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh, > > of course the bedouin in that story [1] was a fool. > [1] http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html > > Of course I am not suggesting that in a consensus or rough consensus > process, holders of a majority viewpoint should agree to something > that they are in actual reality opposed to. Seeking to accommodate the > minority point of view just means to try to find a wording that is > acceptable from both perspectives. A rough consensus call is possible > only after that has been tried unsuccessfully. > > On some (perhaps most) issues we will not reach consensus and not reach > rough consensus either. That's ok. IGC is supposed to “provide a forum > for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil > society contributions in Internet governance processes”. (That's from > the mission statement in the IGC Charter.) The concept of a “forum” > implies accommodating and supporting a plurality of civil society > agendas. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Yes Norbert, it is a concept I am familiar with. >> >> But there's such a thing as the minority point of view making much >> the same 'serious effort' to achieve consensus, if we are not to end >> up with the tale of the camel (or minority point of view) and the >> bedouin (or majority point of view) in his (consensual) tent on a >> cold night. >> >> The bedouin did make a serious and well intentioned attempt to >> accomodate the minority point of view, if you remember the tale - and >> it ended with him being left out in the cold. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 29-May-2013, at 15:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> I was talking about the rough consensus process defined in the >>> Charter. >>> >>> In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming >>> majority” prevails over the minority / dissenting view. >>> >>> This is balanced by the rule that first a serious attempt at trying >>> to reach a compromise must have been made: “Rough consensus can >>> only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate >>> minority points of view.” >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530 >>> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : >>> >>>> And equally by minority points having made the same effort. >>>> Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize. >>>> >>>> But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre >>>> uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to >>>> such a compromise position / middle ground, >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a >>>>> majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be >>>>> possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There >>>>> might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to >>>>> have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of >>>>> people who generally agree but don't post much. >>>>> >>>>> Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by >>>>> any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are >>>>> determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough >>>>> consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a >>>>> serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 >>>>> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : >>>>> >>>>>> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are >>>>>> just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular >>>>>> opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated >>>>>>> assertions concerning majority and minority opinions on this >>>>>>> list (or in CS as a whole… Could it be that what you are >>>>>>> considering a "majority" may simply be louder and more >>>>>>> persistent/insistent voices… M From: >>>>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET >>>>>>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE Riaz, there is a minority that appears >>>>>>> against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the >>>>>>> USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a >>>>>>> minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the >>>>>>> majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share >>>>>>> that consensus. Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical >>>>>>> and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather >>>>>>> careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like >>>>>>> "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get >>>>>>> this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, >>>>>>> Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your >>>>>>> definition of "single rooter". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's >>>>>>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor >>>>>>> of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At >>>>>>> least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the >>>>>>> charter says something to the contrary when others read it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN >>>>>>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance >>>>>>> we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control >>>>>>> over ICANN's narrow bit of turf. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point >>>>>>> is political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal >>>>>>> that it is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control >>>>>>> over CIR is not legitimised... too small to even be noticed >>>>>>> perhaps, but as Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks >>>>>>> being small is ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of >>>>>>> the complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the >>>>>>> single rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally >>>>>>> I find the tenor much better - particularly when it comes to >>>>>>> ensuring a) diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare >>>>>>> I say it) tolerance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to >>>>>>> be sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic >>>>>>> perspective, those who are complaining loudest are those who >>>>>>> have variously sought actively to marginalise certain Third >>>>>>> Worldist views from simply being expressed. A combination I >>>>>>> dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and happy >>>>>>> to be dissuaded from this view. As the African proverb goes, >>>>>>> you can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is >>>>>>> the intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if >>>>>>> it were more refined and empathic than its typical >>>>>>> formulations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. >>>>>>> You see it from the current perspective. I see it from the >>>>>>> perspective of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil >>>>>>> society representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single >>>>>>> rooters, history and context would be required to understand >>>>>>> what is happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine >>>>>>> that chose one particular version and in effect declined or >>>>>>> marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as >>>>>>> unfeasible is something that should never happen again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the >>>>>>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, >>>>>>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the >>>>>>> devil turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are >>>>>>> simply concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness >>>>>>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable >>>>>>> to coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as >>>>>>> Norbert's actions can then be put in the appropriate context >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 29 08:27:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:27:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is > cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. I strongly agree. However no coordinator has said or written that “to criticize the coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator”. Of course discussion of coordinator actions, including critical discussion, is legitimate -- such discussion just needs to conform to the general posting rules of the IGC Charter, just like postings on any other topic. Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed. That is not limited to coordinators. I just pointed out that it is not limited to “everyone except coordinators” either. It is possible to criticize without making disparaging remarks. Avoiding disparaging remarks does not in any way limit the substantive content of criticisms that can be made. If there is disagreement about this point of Charter interpretation, if desired the appeals process is available and can be used, by means of an appeal against the decision to interpret the Charter in the above mentioned way, to resolve the question of whether the posting rules in the Charter forbid disparaging remarks about any Caucus member, or just about everyone except the coordinators. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 29 08:37:58 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:37:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> <1F99F6DE-AC24-4A6B-AFEB-3E6F821BF01A@hserus.net> <20130529122454.4de18e36@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130529122454.4de18e36 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:24:54 on Wed, 29 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming majority” >prevails over the minority / dissenting view. Or as understood in some communities doing "rough consensus": only the trouble-makers disagree. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 29 10:32:16 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:32:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is >> cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. > > I strongly agree. > > However no coordinator has said or written that “to criticize the > coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator”. > > Of course discussion of coordinator actions, including critical > discussion, is legitimate -- such discussion just needs to conform to > the general posting rules of the IGC Charter, just like postings on > any other topic. > > Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed. Great, then you will be taking action against people who use terms like "post-colonial", "hegemonic Civil Society" and "single rooter"? These terms are not used to describe but rather to insult, and often used incorrectly. For example, the way post-colonialism is defined at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism seems to indicate that those who use the term are using it 180 degrees from the way it is defined. In other words, using a "third world lens" to view IG issues is actually practicing post-colonialism. In terms of "single-rootism", the IAB in RFC2826 says: "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root. This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS." While the term is meant (IMHO) to be insulting, it actually describes the vast majority of us who want coherence in our DNS resolution and who follow RFCs. In short, I am hoping the co-cos will watch the uses of disparaging terminology by all, not just by a select few. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 29 10:56:30 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:56:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130529142700.6ae4c342 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 14:27:00 on Wed, 29 May 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed. >That is not limited to coordinators. I just pointed out that it is not >limited to “everyone except coordinators” either. Co-ordinators should have a thicker skin; if not they are in the wrong job. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed May 29 12:15:19 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:15:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Generally, meta-communication (communication about how we communicate) is the best manner to resolve communication problems, and resolve possible "double binds" bugging the communication. And this is true also for electronic communication as experienced on line moderators can testify from their respective experience. I am encline to diagnose that in the case of that community it had strangely and paradoxically turn to do exactly the countrary: the space where tensions and conflicts are fed. May I kindly suggest to every one, including co-co's, to give a long break to discussions about how we discuss and let conflicts and strong differences, if they do exist, express where they should: in the main line of communication, so they can be more clearly identified and acknowledged. I bet we can reach a meta consensus on that proposition :-). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed May 29 13:03:11 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:03:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 for the search of a meta-consensus! mc On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > Generally, meta-communication (communication about how we communicate) is > the best manner to resolve communication problems, > and resolve possible "double binds" bugging the communication. And this is > true also for electronic communication as experienced on line > moderators can testify from their respective experience. > > I am encline to diagnose that in the case of that community it had > strangely and paradoxically turn to do exactly the countrary: the space > where tensions and conflicts are fed. > > May I kindly suggest to every one, including co-co's, to give a long break > to discussions about how we discuss and let conflicts > and strong differences, if they do exist, express where they should: in > the main line of communication, so they can be more clearly > identified and acknowledged. > > I bet we can reach a meta consensus on that proposition :-). > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 29 14:48:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:48:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] IDN: TRIPS HANG OVER LDC LIKE A SWORD OF DAMOCLES In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008201ce5c9d$32a8d7b0$97fa8710$@gmail.com> Perhaps worth being aware of what is happening in other global governance fora... M -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Sangeeta Shashikant Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:27 PM To: Ip-health at lists.keionline.org; a2k discuss list Subject: [A2k] IDN: TRIPS HANG OVER LDC LIKE A SWORD OF DAMOCLES http://www.indepthnews.info/index.php/global-issues/1603-trips-hang-over-ld c-like-a-sword-of-damocles TRIPS HANG OVER LDC LIKE A SWORD OF DAMOCLES By Jaya Ramachandran | IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis BERLIN (IDN) - A modern-day Damocles' sword is hanging over 49 of the world's poorest and most vulnerable courtiers spanning across Asia-Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Unless the U.S. and the 27-nation European Union change their minds, the least developed countries (LDCs) will be forced to abide by the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) ­ much to their detriment. With this in view, LDC Watch non-governmental organisation have urged the EU Trade Policy Committee "to fully support approval of Haiti¹s request" on behalf of the LDCs to the TRIPS Council ­ of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ­ seeking an unconditional deferment of the implementation of TRIPS obligations until the countries of the group graduate from the LDC status. The existing transition period ends on 1 July 1, 2013. In a letter to the Committee, LDC Watch international coordinator Arjun Karki points out that WTO TRIPS Agreement allows LDCs a renewable transition period in recognition of the special needs and requirements of LDCs and the need to create a sound and viable technological base and to overcome economic and financial constraints. And legally Article 66.1 of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement mandates all WTO members to approve the LDC request, once it has been submitted. "The TRIPS Agreement, like all WTO agreements, is built on a foundation of 'special and differential treatment' for developing countries and, especially, for LDCs, in recognition of their vulnerability and constraints," says Karki, adding: At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, in a Decision on Measures in favour of LDCs, WTO members agreed that the WTO rules ³should be applied in a flexible and supportive manner for the least-developed countries². "It is apparent that the WTO legally obliges the TRIPS Council to grant the extension as requested by the LDCs or at the very least to formulate an extension on terms that are favorable and supportive of the needs of LDCs," argues Karki. The LDC request has received massive support from all segments of society. At the March 5-6 TRIPS Council meeting in Geneva, developing countries strongly supported the request. Many civil society groups (representing millions), industry, academics, UN agencies have also firmly supported the approval of an unconditional extension of the transition period for as long as a country remains a LDC. Despite the overwhelming support received, EU representatives in Geneva continue to be opposed to the extension request submitted by the LDC Group. Instead, the EU jointly with the U.S. are offering LDCs a poor and impractical deal of an incredibly short extension (for example, five years) that is subject to restrictive conditions. Particularly problematic, says Karki, is the ³no-roll-back² clause that would force LDCs to maintain current levels of IPRs (intellectual property rights) protections, even if such protection is adverse to their circumstances and needs. Important reasons The LDC Watch pleads for an unconditional extension of the LDC¹s transition period until they cease to be LDCs for the following reasons: - LDCs are the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalized segment of the international community. The challenges, (some of which have been highlighted above) facing LDCs are colossal and formidable. They lack the capacities that are prerequisite to benefit from TRIPS standards of IPRs protection. The requested transition period will enable LDCs to develop their IPR systems gradually in line with their economic and technological development and to address challenges such as bridging the knowledge and technology gap by facilitating access to affordable educational materials and technology. Further LDCs will be able to invest their scarce resources towards pressing development needs rather than on implementing TRIPS-compliant IPR systems, which are not only costly but may adversely impact development. - LDCs are very much in need of quality, low-cost medical products and technologies in LDCs. However it is also well-known that such access may be affected by TRIPS rules, as such rules drive up their prices. The proposed LDC request is critical to facilitate access to affordable medical technologies required in LDCs. - The time-frame proposed by LDCs i.e. that the transition period should apply until a country graduates from the LDC status is reasonable and practical since developing a viable technological base and overcoming constraints such as highlighted above takes decades. A shorter extension (e.g. 5 years or 10 years) is simply inadequate for LDCs. - The condition of ³no-roll-back clause² being imposed on LDCs is aimed at narrowing LDC¹s policy space by cementing colonial era IPR rules and ill-advised IPR reforms. It directly conflicts the intent and spirit of Article 66.1 that LDCs should have maximum flexibility and policy space including the option of undoing existing IPR protections should such protection be adverse to its needs. Accordingly the ³no-roll-back² condition is illegitimate under the TRIPS Agreement as it alters the nature of rights that LDCs are entitled to under the TRIPS Agreement during the transition period. - Pursuant to Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, there is a legal obligation on all Members of the WTO to accord LDC members the requested extension, once a duly motivated request is submitted to the TRIPS Council by the LDCs. This point of view is also backed by the Brussels-based Eurostep, a network of autonomous European non-governmental development organisations working towards peace, justice and equality in a world free of poverty. Its director Simon Stocker said: "I fully support the position being taken by LDC Watch, and would urge EU member states to accede to the LDC's position. Not to do so will only hurt the EU and further tarnish its image around the world." Eurostep advocates changes in Europe's policies and practice based on the perspectives drawn from direct experiences of an active involvement of its members and their partners in development in over 100 countries across the world. LDC Watch is an important partner of Eurostep. Unethical In fact the LDC Watch and the Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) have charged the developed nations and incumbent chair of the TRIPS Council of ³unjust and unethical treatment². The large number of supporters of LDC demand have not been invited to participate in the ongoing consultations,² says a statement issued by the LDC Watch and the OWINFS. ³Instead, the consultations have been limited to the LDC Group and developed countries like the US, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, in particular, including the Council Chair. ³Alfredo Suescum, who is the current chair of the Council on TRIPS of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is, therefore, depriving LDCs of their allies, while attempting to overwhelm the negotiating capacity of the poorest members of the WTO by placing them in an unfair position where they have to face the united might of the developed countries.² Adverse impact on EAC According to Uganda's daily, the New Vision, The United States, European Union, and Australia are aggressively trying to pressure LDCs to keep in place the ³no roll-back² provision that prevents LDCs from changing their existing laws, even if they were adopted from the colonial era or new laws that have proven bad for development. The precarious events have put four of the five East African Community (EAC) partner states ­ Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda ­ classified as Least Developed Countries at a high risk of having access to medicine, food, and seeds, writes Patrick Jaramogi. Under the TRIPS Agreement, the four EAC states apart from Kenya that is under the developing countries category are not obliged to implement the TRIPS agreement until July 2013 and until 2016 for the IPRs relating to pharmaceutical. The agreement gives them rights to seek further extension of these transitions deadlines, restrict IPR protection and under certain circumstances issue licenses for import or production of an IPR protected commodity without authority from the Intellectual Property Rights Holder. Civil society organisations (CSOs) contend that for these reasons, technologically advanced countries such as the U.S., EU, and others consider TRIPS agreement too weak to serve their interests,² Primah Kwagala and Intellectual Property Lawyer with Center for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) told the New Vision. LDC criteria A country is classified as a LDC on the basis of three criteria ­ low income, human assets weakness, economic vulnerability ­ applied by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP), a subsidiary body of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This Committee also recommends graduation of a country from its LDC status. In any case, generally on most aspects the conditions prevailing in LDCs are terribly poor. For example, more than half of the population lives on less than $1.25 (PPP) per day; adult literacy rate in LDCs is on average at 60.7%, with gross enrolment in tertiary education at about 6.6% while primary school dropout rate at 40.9 % of the population; only 1.7 per 100 people have personal computers, while about 5 out of 100 have access to the worldwide network; more than half of the LDC population do not have access to electricity, water or sanitation facilities. The productive capacities in LDCs are also extremely limited and they tend to be at the bottom of all innovation/technology indices. [IDN-InDepthNews ­ May 25, 2013] _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Wed May 29 20:37:52 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 20:37:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and block access to content for people across the globe. The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM vendors into the HTML standard. "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments to interoperability and access for all." DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers cannot compete without explicit permission from big content companies. EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that gave birth to the Web." For EFF's full Formal Objection: https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg For more on DRM in HTML5: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm Contacts: Danny O'Brien International Outreach Coordinator Electronic Frontier Foundation danny at eff.org Seth Schoen Senior Staff Technologist Electronic Frontier Foundation seth at eff.org -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Wed May 29 08:32:40 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:32:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4DEE4.8050809@gmail.com> <7136E2A9-1B6F-4676-AA9D-398FC46777D6@hserus.net> <094d01ce5bcc$e3b04880$ab10d980$@gmail.com> <421EFDF0-910F-4AAD-B7BC-30C47B2FFB6B@hserus.net> <20130528220158.35936172@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <147833690-1369882906-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-701592717-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> PapppppppNe Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:01:58 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be possible to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There might sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to have only a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of people who generally agree but don't post much. Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by any means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are determined by only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough consensus process is explicitly based on first having made a serious attempt to accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just > as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am. > > I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular > opinion is voiced. Unscientific of course but well .. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > > I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions > > concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as > > a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may > > simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > > Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET > > NEUTRALITY AND MORE > > Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is > > emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD > > economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate > > justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate > > because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that > > has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who > > would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology > > like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get > > this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya > > and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of > > "single rooter". > > > > Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's > > personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of > > scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least > > that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says > > something to the contrary when others read it. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > > On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN > > processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we > > will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over > > ICANN's narrow bit of turf. > > > > Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is > > political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it > > is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is > > not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as > > Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is > > ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito. > > > > Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the > > complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single > > rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the > > tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) > > diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) > > tolerance. > > > > And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be > > sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, > > those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously > > sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from > > simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too > > coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this > > view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am > > not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment. > > It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than > > its typical formulations. > > > > I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You > > see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective > > of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society > > representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters, > > history and context would be required to understand what is > > happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose > > one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised > > technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something > > that should never happen again. > > > > Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the > > co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, > > because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil > > turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply > > concerned with the rules of the road, as are you. > > > > As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness > > (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to > > coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's > > actions can then be put in the appropriate context > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 30 03:21:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:21:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51A6FDF1.7030002@gmail.com> McT There are limits to discourse. So from I guess some energy conservation is in order on my part. On po-co, I think you may be on the verge of a breakthrough. You should pursue it. You may very well change a whole field. I waid with bated breath and all that... It is not my problem that you fall into the categories of classical asymmetry of power, its use and that your politics fits this. Finally, and I don't know how to say this without being offensive: do not presume to tell me what to think. But if you and others don't even have that sensibility... enough said. On 2013/05/29 05:32 PM, McTim wrote: > Norbert, > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is >>> cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. >> I strongly agree. >> >> However no coordinator has said or written that “to criticize the >> coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator”. >> >> Of course discussion of coordinator actions, including critical >> discussion, is legitimate -- such discussion just needs to conform to >> the general posting rules of the IGC Charter, just like postings on >> any other topic. >> >> Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed. > Great, then you will be taking action against people who use terms > like "post-colonial", "hegemonic Civil Society" and "single rooter"? > These terms are not used to describe but rather to insult, and often > used incorrectly. For example, the way post-colonialism is defined at > Wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism > > seems to indicate that those who use the term are using it 180 degrees > from the way it is defined. In other words, using a "third world > lens" to view IG issues is actually practicing post-colonialism. > > In terms of "single-rootism", the IAB in RFC2826 says: > > "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a > globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a > hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root. > This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS." > > While the term is meant (IMHO) to be insulting, it actually describes > the vast majority of us who want coherence in our DNS resolution and > who follow RFCs. > > In short, I am hoping the co-cos will watch the uses of disparaging > terminology by all, not just by a select few. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 30 03:26:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:26:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] On acceptable and unacceptable criticism In-Reply-To: <51A6FDF1.7030002@gmail.com> References: <20130527112110.0ccc1262@quill.bollow.ch> <65598C84-A67A-4009-890A-CCD9C89E710A@ella.com> <51A44248.7000602@gmail.com> <4327DF59-9C3D-4CF6-A677-22627A6AD672@ella.com> <20130529142700.6ae4c342@quill.bollow.ch> <51A6FDF1.7030002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130530072625.GA13594@hserus.net> Riaz, nobody at all tells you what to "think". If you overuse ideological cant phrases - especially those that redefine widely used technical definitions - please don't blame people if they read a meaning into it that you may or may not have intended. Riaz K Tayob [30/05/13 10:21 +0300]: >McT > >There are limits to discourse. So from I guess some energy >conservation is in order on my part. > >On po-co, I think you may be on the verge of a breakthrough. You >should pursue it. You may very well change a whole field. I waid with >bated breath and all that... > >It is not my problem that you fall into the categories of classical >asymmetry of power, its use and that your politics fits this. > >Finally, and I don't know how to say this without being offensive: do >not presume to tell me what to think. But if you and others don't >even have that sensibility... enough said. > >On 2013/05/29 05:32 PM, McTim wrote: >>Norbert, >> >>On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>>When a coordinator tells people that to criticize the coordinator is >>>>cause for discipline by the coordinator, it goes too far. >>>I strongly agree. >>> >>>However no coordinator has said or written that “to criticize the >>>coordinator is cause for discipline by the coordinator”. >>> >>>Of course discussion of coordinator actions, including critical >>>discussion, is legitimate -- such discussion just needs to conform to >>>the general posting rules of the IGC Charter, just like postings on >>>any other topic. >>> >>>Disparaging remarks about any member of the Caucus are not allowed. >>Great, then you will be taking action against people who use terms >>like "post-colonial", "hegemonic Civil Society" and "single rooter"? >>These terms are not used to describe but rather to insult, and often >>used incorrectly. For example, the way post-colonialism is defined at >>Wikipedia: >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism >> >>seems to indicate that those who use the term are using it 180 degrees >>from the way it is defined. In other words, using a "third world >>lens" to view IG issues is actually practicing post-colonialism. >> >>In terms of "single-rootism", the IAB in RFC2826 says: >> >> "To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a >> globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a >> hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root. >> This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS." >> >>While the term is meant (IMHO) to be insulting, it actually describes >>the vast majority of us who want coherence in our DNS resolution and >>who follow RFCs. >> >>In short, I am hoping the co-cos will watch the uses of disparaging >>terminology by all, not just by a select few. >> >> > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 30 04:21:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:51:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > > EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > > San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a > formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the World Wide Web > Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and block access to > content for people across the globe. > > The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group has > accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM vendors > into the HTML standard. > > "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment > industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said > EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might > soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological > evolution, it could also create serious impediments to > interoperability and access for all." > > DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their stated > intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal mandates that > chill the speech of technologists, lock down technology, and violate > property rights by seizing control of personal computers from their > owners. Accepting EME could lead to other rightsholders demanding the > same privileges as Hollywood, leading to a Web where images and pages > cannot be saved or searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new > browsers cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > companies. > > EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > > "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it never > existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff Technologist Seth > Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for what it is: a creation > that will shut out open source developers and competition, throw away > interoperability, and lock in legacy business models. This is the > opposite of the fair use model that gave birth to the Web." > > For EFF's full Formal Objection: > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > For more on DRM in HTML5: > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > > Contacts: > > Danny O'Brien > International Outreach Coordinator > Electronic Frontier Foundation > danny at eff.org > > Seth Schoen > Senior Staff Technologist > Electronic Frontier Foundation > seth at eff.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 30 04:46:47 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 04:46:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Meanwhile on the Cyberwar front Message-ID: <047901ce5d12$431f91e0$c95eb5a0$@gmail.com> How the U.S. Government Hacks the World By Michael Riley on May 23, 2013 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world Obscured by trees and grassy berms, the campus of the National Security Agency sits 15 miles north of Washington’s traffic-clogged Beltway, its 6 million square feet of blast-resistant buildings punctuated by clusters of satellite dishes. Created in 1952 to intercept radio and other electronic transmissions—known as signals intelligence—the NSA now focuses much of its espionage resources on stealing what spies euphemistically call “electronic data at rest.” These are the secrets that lay inside the computer networks and hard drives of terrorists, rogue nations, and even nominally friendly governments. When President Obama receives his daily intelligence briefing, most of the information comes from government cyberspies, says Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence under President George W. Bush. “It’s at least 75 percent, and going up,” he says. Australian spies seek power to break into Tor By BERNARD KEANE MAY 30, 2013 http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/30/revealed-australian-spies-seek-power-to-break-into-tor/ The Attorney-General’s Department has admitted data retention will be “trivially easy” to avoid and that intelligence services want to be able to break into encrypted internet systems like Tor. In a major admission, the Attorney-General’s Department has revealed Australia’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies are seeking the legal power to break into internet routing encryption services such as Tor, after admitting the centerpiece of its proposed national security reforms, data retention, will be “trivially easy” to defeat. The admission by officials to Senate Estimates last night will give rise to further concerns that the department, which has systematically and aggressively expanded the powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the expense of civil liberties and privacy, wants far stronger powers to regulate the internet and break into encrypted systems in order to keep an eye on what Australians are doing online. U.S., Australia reports allege new spying by China hackers Blueprints of new Australian spy headquarters stolen, report says By Reuters http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/28/australia-china-hacking.html Chinese hackers have gained access to designs of more than two dozen major U.S. weapons systems, a U.S. report said on Monday, as Australian media said Chinese hackers had stolen the blueprints for Australia's new spy headquarters. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu May 30 04:53:17 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:53:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> +1 On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > > On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > > > >EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > > > >San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >block access to content for people across the globe. > > > >The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >vendors into the HTML standard. > > > >"This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >impediments to interoperability and access for all." > > > >DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >companies. > > > >EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > > > >"The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >gave birth to the Web." > > > >For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > > >For more on DRM in HTML5: > >https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > > > >Contacts: > > > >Danny O'Brien > >International Outreach Coordinator > >Electronic Frontier Foundation > >danny at eff.org > > > >Seth Schoen > >Senior Staff Technologist > >Electronic Frontier Foundation > >seth at eff.org > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 30 05:04:56 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:04:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Dear Members, I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > +1 > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > >> >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >> >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>> >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>> >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>> >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>> >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>> >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>> companies. >>> >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>> >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>> gave birth to the Web." >>> >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>> >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>> >>> Contacts: >>> >>> Danny O'Brien >>> International Outreach Coordinator >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> danny at eff.org >>> >>> Seth Schoen >>> Senior Staff Technologist >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> seth at eff.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Thu May 30 05:12:58 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:12:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I support EFF's objection. On 30 May 2013 19:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection > through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aidanoblia at gmail.com Thu May 30 07:12:27 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:12:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Estimados: Dados los fundamentos que se expresan estoy de acuerdo y me parece razonable la objeción. Saludlos Aída Noblia Asociación de Escribanos del Uruguay 2013/5/30 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection > through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 30 08:09:46 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:09:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Raul on EC Message-ID: http://raul.echeberria.org/2008/12/enhanced-cooperation-its-meaning-and-progress/ -- 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 babatope at gmail.com Thu May 30 10:09:32 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:09:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1167672488-1369922336-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-956794097-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> I vote yes to endorsing the statement PS My apologies for d mobile device devil's ink mail sent from my account yesterday Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: Aida Noblia Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:12:27 To: ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Aida Noblia Subject: Re: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Estimados: Dados los fundamentos que se expresan estoy de acuerdo y me parece razonable la objeción. Saludlos Aída Noblia Asociación de Escribanos del Uruguay 2013/5/30 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection > through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu May 30 13:08:04 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:08:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A78774.2000408@catherine-roy.net> Hi, I strongly support this proposal. Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 30/05/2013 5:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> >>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>> >>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>> >>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>> >>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>> >>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>> >>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>> >>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>> >>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>> >>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>> >>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>> >>>> Contacts: >>>> >>>> Danny O'Brien >>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> danny at eff.org >>>> >>>> Seth Schoen >>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> seth at eff.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Thu May 30 13:16:33 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 01:16:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I support EFFs position. On 30/05/2013, at 5:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> >>> >>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>> >>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>> >>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>> >>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>> >>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>> >>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>> >>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>> >>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>> >>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>> >>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>> >>>> Contacts: >>>> >>>> Danny O'Brien >>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> danny at eff.org >>>> >>>> Seth Schoen >>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> seth at eff.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu May 30 13:34:20 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:20 +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> Message-ID: <3d2c5a31-afe0-4f7e-b6c0-0a1f56a987e5@email.android.com> +1 David Cake wrote: >I support EFFs position. > >On 30/05/2013, at 5:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's >objection through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... >parminder >>>> >>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> FYI. (Source : >https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>> >>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>> >>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>> >>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>> >>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>> >>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>> companies. >>>>> >>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>> >>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>> >>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>> >>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>> >>>>> Contacts: >>>>> >>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> seth at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ~~~ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 30 14:06:18 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 04:06:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <3d2c5a31-afe0-4f7e-b6c0-0a1f56a987e5@email.android.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <3d2c5a31-afe0-4f7e-b6c0-0a1f56a987e5@email.android.com> Message-ID: <1C7BDE49C1E746D09784437C72593535@Toshiba> yes From: Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 +1 David Cake wrote: I support EFFs position. On 30/05/2013, at 5:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:Dear Members,I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. Kind Regards,SalaSent from my iPadOn May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:+1On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminderOn Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5)EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web InnovationSan Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rightsmanagement (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from theWorld Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation andblock access to content for people across the globe.The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard forHTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that createswebpages and otherwise displays content online. The working grouphas accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted MediaExtensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRMvendors into the HTML standard."This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTMLstandardization: it defines a new 'black box' for theentertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser andend-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "Whilethis plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scaredof technological evolution, it could also create seriousimpediments to interoperability and access for all."DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out tohave quite different qualities. They fail to implement theirstated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legalmandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock downtechnology, and violate property rights by seizing control ofpersonal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead toother rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood,leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved orsearched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browserscannot compete without explicit permission from big contentcompanies.EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C.EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences ofaccepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web."The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similarproposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Webbecome buried in the demands of businesses that would rather itnever existed in the first place," said EFF Senior StaffTechnologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen forwhat it is: a creation that will shut out open source developersand competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacybusiness models. This is the opposite of the fair use model thatgave birth to the Web."For EFF's full Formal Objection:https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wgFor more on DRM in HTML5:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drmContacts:Danny O'BrienInternational Outreach CoordinatorElectronic Frontier Foundationdanny at eff.orgSeth SchoenSenior Staff TechnologistElectronic Frontier Foundationseth at eff.org------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.orgTo be removed from the list, visit:http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribingFor all other list information and functions, see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governanceTo edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t-- Tapani Tarvainen--------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.orgTo be removed from the list, visit:http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribingFor all other list information and functions, see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governanceTo edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t----------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.orgTo be removed from the list, visit:http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribingFor all other list information and functions, see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governanceTo edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ~~~ 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 jstyre at jstyre.com Thu May 30 14:11:50 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:11:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011101ce5d61$28a7cea0$79f76be0$@jstyre.com> +1 Full disclosure, I am an EFF Fellow, but I was not involved in EFF's process on this. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:17 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: Re: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in > HTML5 > > I support EFFs position. > > On 30/05/2013, at 5:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > Dear Members, > > > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the > crafting of the statement. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> FYI. (Source : > >>>> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-h > >>>> tml5) > >>>> > >>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 Draft Proposal from W3C > >>>> Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>>> > >>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>>> > >>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>>> > >>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment > >>>> industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," > >>>> said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan > >>>> might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of > >>>> technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments > >>>> to interoperability and access for all." > >>>> > >>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their stated > >>>> intention - protecting media - while dragging in legal mandates > >>>> that chill the speech of technologists, lock down technology, and > >>>> violate property rights by seizing control of personal computers > >>>> from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to other rightsholders > >>>> demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, leading to a Web where > >>>> images and pages cannot be saved or searched, ads cannot be > >>>> blocked, and innovative new browsers cannot compete without > >>>> explicit permission from big content companies. > >>>> > >>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>>> > >>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>>> gave birth to the Web." > >>>> > >>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>>> > >>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>>> > >>>> Contacts: > >>>> > >>>> Danny O'Brien > >>>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>>> danny at eff.org > >>>> > >>>> Seth Schoen > >>>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>>> seth at eff.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Tapani Tarvainen > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu May 30 15:32:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:32:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> +1 --c.a. On 05/30/2013 06:12 AM, Angela Daly wrote: > I support EFF's objection. > > On 30 May 2013 19:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's > objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net > ) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... > parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 hasansf at gmail.com Thu May 30 16:27:57 2013 From: hasansf at gmail.com (Faisal Hasan) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 02:27:57 +0600 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace Message-ID: Dear Friends, Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the government is in a dire situation. From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 people were dead! Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? Thanks Faisal Hasan, PhD Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu May 30 17:26:41 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:26:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Faisal, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has written about a subset of these issues from a technical perspective. See SAC050 and SAC056 at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents. Regards, -drc Sent from a tiny piece of glass and metal. Apologies for brevity and tpyos. On May 30, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the government is in a dire situation. > > From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 people were dead! > > Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? > > Thanks > Faisal Hasan, PhD > Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Thu May 30 18:03:47 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 03:03:47 +0500 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Faisal, We can understand the problem you have highlighted, since we are in same boat, as you also aware pakistan has similar problem that YouTube is blocked based on the content. Till to date google has not been able to solve the problem with govt. Sad to hear about the deaths of people. Let us all sit together and try to solve the issue together as one society. Technical and policy, advice from, community pl. Sincerely On Friday, 31 May 2013, Faisal Hasan wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this > option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to > remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s > refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its > website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror > server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered > out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. Recently, > in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is used > not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by > some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly > violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, > the government is in a dire situation. > > From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two > weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many > govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I > have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The > situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are > millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily > agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the > seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 > people were dead! > > Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? > Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies > such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? > > Thanks > Faisal Hasan, PhD > Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 30 19:20:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 04:50:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <3d2c5a31-afe0-4f7e-b6c0-0a1f56a987e5@email.android.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <3d2c5a31-afe0-4f7e-b6c0-0a1f56a987e5@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5A7ECCEF-E635-4E67-B4BC-8D9626D230B9@hserus.net> +1 supporting EFF's letter. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 30 19:29:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 04:59:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13FE52B7-EC5A-4511-9937-C894A85FA202@hserus.net> This has to be handled and presented carefully. Because Google at least has to take first amendment protections for free speech into account when deciding what content to take down The first amendment is quite broad but does have specific limits and exceptions ("shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an example). The suggestion of having a local instance of Google where a country's national censorship applies - well, it isn't cheap or easy to do, so Google may comply, refuse to comply and get blocked, or simply - like mainland china, where they apparently faced attacks as well, just exit the market. --srs (iPad) On 31-May-2013, at 3:33, Kabani wrote: > Faisal, > > We can understand the problem you have highlighted, since we are in same boat, as you also aware pakistan has similar problem that YouTube is blocked based on the content. Till to date google has not been able to solve the problem with govt. > > Sad to hear about the deaths of people. Let us all sit together and try to solve the issue together as one society. > > Technical and policy, advice from, community pl. > > Sincerely > > On Friday, 31 May 2013, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> Dear Friends, >> >> Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the government is in a dire situation. >> >> From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 people were dead! >> >> Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? >> >> Thanks >> Faisal Hasan, PhD >> Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter > > > -- > Sent from iPad > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Thu May 30 19:39:07 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:39:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace In-Reply-To: <13FE52B7-EC5A-4511-9937-C894A85FA202@hserus.net> References: <13FE52B7-EC5A-4511-9937-C894A85FA202@hserus.net> Message-ID: <028901ce5d8e$e368f9d0$aa3aed70$@jstyre.com> A digression, to be sure, but Suresh, it’s falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. A truly excellent blog post on that subject is at http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:29 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kabani Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Faisal Hasan; Chapter Delegates; ISOC Chapter Support Subject: Re: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace This has to be handled and presented carefully. Because Google at least has to take first amendment protections for free speech into account when deciding what content to take down The first amendment is quite broad but does have specific limits and exceptions ("shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an example). The suggestion of having a local instance of Google where a country's national censorship applies - well, it isn't cheap or easy to do, so Google may comply, refuse to comply and get blocked, or simply - like mainland china, where they apparently faced attacks as well, just exit the market. --srs (iPad) On 31-May-2013, at 3:33, Kabani wrote: Faisal, We can understand the problem you have highlighted, since we are in same boat, as you also aware pakistan has similar problem that YouTube is blocked based on the content. Till to date google has not been able to solve the problem with govt. Sad to hear about the deaths of people. Let us all sit together and try to solve the issue together as one society. Technical and policy, advice from, community pl. Sincerely On Friday, 31 May 2013, Faisal Hasan wrote: Dear Friends, Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which is used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but also by some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the government is in a dire situation. >From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 people were dead! Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? Thanks Faisal Hasan, PhD Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter -- Sent from iPad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu May 30 20:04:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 05:34:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace In-Reply-To: <028901ce5d8e$e368f9d0$aa3aed70$@jstyre.com> References: <13FE52B7-EC5A-4511-9937-C894A85FA202@hserus.net> <028901ce5d8e$e368f9d0$aa3aed70$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <13ef7e6a8ac.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> True. Do remind me to get coffee before, the next time If there actually is a fire.. :) --srs (htc one x) On 31 May 2013 5:09:07 AM "James S. Tyre" wrote: > A digression, to be sure, but Suresh, it’s falsely shouting fire in a > crowded theater. > > > > A truly excellent blog post on that subject is at > http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ > > > > -- > > James S. Tyre > > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > > jstyre at jstyre.com > > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://www.eff.org > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:29 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kabani > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Faisal Hasan; Chapter Delegates; ISOC > Chapter Support > Subject: Re: [governance] Content filtering and jurisdiction of cyberspace > > > > This has to be handled and presented carefully. Because Google at least > has to take first amendment protections for free speech into account when > deciding what content to take down > > > > The first amendment is quite broad but does have specific limits and > exceptions ("shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an example). > > The suggestion of having a local instance of Google where a country's > national censorship applies - well, it isn't cheap or easy to do, so Google > may comply, refuse to comply and get blocked, or simply - like mainland > china, where they apparently faced attacks as well, just exit the market. > > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 31-May-2013, at 3:33, Kabani wrote: > > Faisal, > > > > We can understand the problem you have highlighted, since we are in same > boat, as you also aware pakistan has similar problem that YouTube is > blocked based on the content. Till to date google has not been able to > solve the problem with govt. > > > Sad to hear about the deaths of people. Let us all sit together and try to > solve the issue together as one society. > > > > Technical and policy, advice from, community pl. > > > > Sincerely > > > On Friday, 31 May 2013, Faisal Hasan wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > > > Bangladesh Govt. plans to filter internet contents. We know that this > option of filtering is not a solution, instead efforts must be taken to > remove content from the source. The move actually stemmed from Google’s > refusal to take down the trailer of a religiously sensitive film from its > website Youtube.com. Bangladesh even asked Google to install a mirror > server for Bangladesh nine months ago so that such videos could be filtered > out. Youtube is still blocked in Bangladesh since last September. > Recently, in Bangladesh the Internet has become a double edged sword which > is used not only by activists to raise voice for legitimate reasons but > also by some bad politicians to provoke innocent people to create deadly > violence. We have already have had 'our spring' last February. Clearly, the > government is in a dire situation. > > > > From our chapter we are initiating a dialogue with the government in two > weeks time. We would like to get your inputs about this issue. I know many > govts have implemented filtering like this and all most all the report I > have seen suggest that this does more harm than good for the people. The > situation in a country like Bangladesh deserves special care as there are > millions of people here who donot have basic education and are easily > agitated by inappropriate/fake content. To give you an idea about the > seriousness of the issue, I would say that in a single day in February 40 > people were dead! > > > > Please let us know what you think can be done? What is the alternative? > Does global companies have more responsibility in making their policies > such that it takes care about issues in developing countries? > > > > Thanks > > Faisal Hasan, PhD > > Internet Society Bangladesh Dhaka Chapter > > > > -- > Sent from iPad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu May 30 23:20:56 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:20:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51A81718.1010407@communisphere.com> I support crafting a statement. On 5/30/2013 5:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> >>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>> >>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>> >>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>> >>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>> >>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>> >>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>> >>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>> >>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>> >>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>> >>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>> >>>> Contacts: >>>> >>>> Danny O'Brien >>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> danny at eff.org >>>> >>>> Seth Schoen >>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> seth at eff.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu May 30 23:25:04 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:55:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51A7A94B.3060400@cafonso.ca> 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> Message-ID: <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net> +1 Guru On 05/31/2013 01:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > +1 > > --c.a. > > On 05/30/2013 06:12 AM, Angela Daly wrote: >> I support EFF's objection. >> >> On 30 May 2013 19:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's >> objection through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net >> ) wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> FYI. (Source : >> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >> >>> >> >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >> >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >> >>> >> >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >> >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal >> from the >> >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >> >>> block access to content for people across the globe. >> >>> >> >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical >> standard for >> >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that >> creates >> >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working >> group >> >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted >> Media >> >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >> >>> vendors into the HTML standard. >> >>> >> >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >> >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >> >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the >> browser and >> >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. >> "While >> >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are >> scared >> >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >> >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >> >>> >> >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn >> out to >> >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >> >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >> >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >> >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >> >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could >> lead to >> >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >> >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >> >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >> >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >> >>> companies. >> >>> >> >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member >> of W3C. >> >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >> >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the >> Web. >> >>> >> >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >> >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the >> Web >> >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >> >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >> >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen >> for >> >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source >> developers >> >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in >> legacy >> >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model >> that >> >>> gave birth to the Web." >> >>> >> >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >> >>> >> >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >> >>> >> >>> Contacts: >> >>> >> >>> Danny O'Brien >> >>> International Outreach Coordinator >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> danny at eff.org >> >>> >> >>> Seth Schoen >> >>> Senior Staff Technologist >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> seth at eff.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Fri May 31 00:58:01 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:58:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51A81810.40409@ITforChange.net> 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: +1 On Friday, 31 May 2013, Guru गुरु wrote: > +1 > Guru > > On 05/31/2013 01:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > +1 > > --c.a. > > On 05/30/2013 06:12 AM, Angela Daly wrote: > > I support EFF's objection. > > On 30 May 2013 19:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's > objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net > ) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... > parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser > and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out > to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > > > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gorka.orueta at ehu.es Fri May 31 03:26:22 2013 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:26:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <6CC4E602-B824-4C68-A964-1E04A13220DD@ehu.es> I support EEFs objection. Kind regards, Gorka Orueta Enviado desde mi iPad El 30/05/2013, a las 02:37, Catherine Roy escribió: > FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > > EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > > San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and block access to content for people across the globe. > > The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM vendors into the HTML standard. > > "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments to interoperability and access for all." > > DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers cannot compete without explicit permission from big content companies. > > EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > > "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that gave birth to the Web." > > For EFF's full Formal Objection: > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > For more on DRM in HTML5: > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > > Contacts: > > Danny O'Brien > International Outreach Coordinator > Electronic Frontier Foundation > danny at eff.org > > Seth Schoen > Senior Staff Technologist > Electronic Frontier Foundation > seth at eff.org > > > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri May 31 08:32:27 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:32:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Host Website Message-ID: http://igf2013.or.id/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 31 08:40:38 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:40:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] tangential - US - More Market State In Action: Consumers Treated Differently Under the Law Than Businesses Message-ID: <51A89A46.7070607@gmail.com> Pursuant to previous discussions: - At one level this is normal, on another it implies somewhat a lack of equality in the law, pointing to intimate association of Firms and State in the US, relevant on contracting (particularly shrink wrap for eg) and consumer liberty, vs corporate liberty as raised by Gurstein on this list with the related Ralph Nader article. This is the ecology in which Multistakeholderism will operate and consideration of how to balance public interest with corporate ones is important. - this points to the credibility/legitimacy/plausibility of the internationalisation positions of Mueller as well McTim; raising the question of why should anyone outside the US be happy with US control over key elements of the CIR. - Legitimacy of both libertarian and market friendly views - if the terrain is unequal and there is differential treatment what is to preclude the marginalisation of foreign interests in similar cases if ICANN were to mess up for instance on its Intellectual Property decisions regarding new domains? - this raises the serious question of third world countries that seek to promote their large firms, which start from a bigger disadvantage, may be more ruthless and opportunistic than more established rich country firms... I guess no predictive value here, as it also all depends... Riaz Friday, May 31, 2013 More Market State In Action: Consumers Treated Differently Under the Law Than Businesses You thought corporate personhood was a bad thing? Think twice. You should be so lucky as to be a corporate person. They don't just get treated like you and me, they are increasingly being treated better than you and me. Bear with this very specific and for non-laywers, legally dense illustration, that I received earlier in the week: I am Michael Morgan, the pro se plaintiff in Morgan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., 795 F.Supp.2d 1370 (N.D.Ga. 2011). This is one of two extremely well-written decisions in which Judge Amy Totenberg ruled that, in Georgia, a non-judicial foreclosure must be brought by the secured creditor and that the identity of the secured creditor must be revealed. The other case is Stubbs v. Bank of America, 844 F.Supp.2d 1267 (N.D.Ga. 2012). I was wondering if you have seen You et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. S13Q0040, Georgia Supreme Court. http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s13q0040.pdf In the You et al. case, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, in Georgia, (a) the holder of a security deed could be considered a secured creditor and could initiate a non-judicial foreclosure, despite the fact that it did not hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial interest in the debt underlying the security deed, and (b) the identity of the secured creditor did not need to be revealed in the foreclosure notice. In so holding, the Georgia Supreme Court was interpreting O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-162.2(a), which requires that the foreclosure notice be sent by the secured creditor. See also O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-162, which requires that the security instrument or an assignment thereof vesting title in the secured creditor be filed in the real estate records of the appropriate county prior to the foreclosure sale. While not expressing it in precisely this manner, the Georgia Supreme Court held, in effect, that the relevant provisions of the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. Section 11-1-101, et seq., yield to and are superseded by O.C.G.A. 44-14-64(b). This code section provides that the transfer of a security deed is sufficient to transfer the indebtedness, even when the indebtedness is evidenced by a note. N.B. O.C.G.A. 11-10-103 requires precisely the opposite result; i.e., this code section specifically provides that provisions included in Article 3 of Chapter 14 of Title 44 (which includes O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b)) yield to and are superseded by the Georgia UCC. (Appellants' counsel did not refer to O.C.G.A. Section 11-10-103 in either of the two briefs which he submitted to the Court. I have not yet confirmed that there is no reference to this code section in any of the six other briefs submitted in the case, but I do not expect to find such a reference.) If it makes any difference, pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 1-1-9, the effective date of both the current version of the Georgia UCC and O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b) was November 1, 1982. Appellees apparently argued that O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b) prevailed over the Georgia UCC, because the corresponding provision in the 1933 Georgia Code (Section 67-1305.1) was adopted after Georgia first adopted its version of the UCC. (With limited exceptions, the 1933 Georgia Code has been repealed in its entirety.) I believe that it is readily apparent that the effect of the ruling in You et al. could wreak havoc in commercial markets, if the decision is taken seriously in contexts other than non-judicial foreclosures. Warehousing lenders, e.g., have relied upon possession of the original note as security, and the security deed is never assigned to them. However, under the rationale of You et al., an assignment of a Georgia security deed to a third party, while the warehousing lender held the corresponding note, would transfer the indebtedness to that third party. Many other scenarios can be envisioned in which this rationale would have devastating effects upon commerce. I here am only trying to inform you about this decision, in the event that you are not aware of it. It does not yet seem to be receiving the attention that it deserves. I ran this message by Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin, who is arguably the top US expert on mortgage securitizations. He gave the ruling a quick read and said it did appear that there appeared to be an inconsistency, that the Georgia court found that the note follows the mortgage, rather than the mortgage follows the note. They failed to reconcile the statute that says note follows the mortgage with the UCC Article 9 provision that says the opposite. Oops. But this is where it gets interesting, and ugly. It's clear that the conclusion the court reached in the consumer case would be untenable if you had two banks dealing with each other. Levitin speculated that what would happen in Georgia was not that some later court would come down one way or the other on this rather basic question. Instead, he anticipated that the law would be applied one way for consumers when banks want to foreclose and the opposite way for warehouse lending. The implications of this are very serious. The basic premise of the law has for a very long time been that justice is blind, that judges will rule without reference to who is making the argument, unless the party gives reason for that to be made an issue (for instance, one of the parties has a history of bad faith behavior). Of course, any black person will tell you that's nonsense, that blacks are found guilty and get far more severe punishments in similar fact sets than whites. But that's seen by most commentators as symptomatic of how deep seated prejudice is in American society as much as a serious shortcoming of our legal system (studies continue to find ample evidence of discrimination in hiring, promotion, treatment by salesmen, etc). Similarly, small fry who go up against people with better, meaner lawyers usually fare badly in court, but again, the outcome is a result of their access to resources, not to their demographics. By contrast, this sort of outcome that Levitin anticipates in Georgia illustrates a serious erosion in the role of the judiciary, that the law has become pliable and will be twisted in knots if that's what it takes to serve commerce. Contract law has for some time been moving in a direction that gives businesses the upper hand. IN consumer cases, take it or leave it contracts ("adhesion contracts") are treated in litigation as if the consumer had bargained over terms, while in a business to business case, the court would typically look to see if the parties really had negotiated terms in making a ruling. Another example is binding mandatory arbitration. That gets forced on consumers all the time as a way to prevent class action litigation and to stack the deck overwhelmingly in their favor when disputes arise . What good is having a contract when it is certain to be interpreted in a one-sided manner? I've used the term "market state" for this practice, but as Lambert flagged in his earlier discussions, it's not clear if this expression is adequate. One of the problems is that we are struggling for terminology to describe our new social/political order. The old frames don't fit well. Even "neofeudalism" is too generous, since peasants weren't subject to a surveillance state and the nobles actually were expected to fight. By contrast, one of the salient characteristics of our emerging social order is covert coercion. There are all sorts of things you can't do if you refuse to have a credit card, or a broadband account (and the surveillance that goes with it) or a cell phone (ditto). You mark yourself a weirdo and hurt your employability. Most people don't think about what they submit to in participating in modern life, and that's because, for many, they can't function and earn an income otherwise. I'd very much welcome reader input on both more examples of this phenomenon and better ways to describe it. Topics: Legal , Politics , Real estate , Social policy , Social values , The destruction of the middle class Email This Post Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 3:15 am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: email.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1065 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 31 09:26:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:26:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] tangential - US - More Market State In Action: Consumers Treated Differently Under the Law Than Businesses In-Reply-To: <51A89A46.7070607@gmail.com> References: <51A89A46.7070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Co-Co's, Are we really going to have to suffer through multiple completely off-topic mails by this poster? Reposting a story about a random mortgage case has nothing to do with IG, despite the valiant efforts to somehow tie it in. If anything at all that happens in the USA can be considered on-topic, then I will be unsubscribing. Please let me know ASAP. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Pursuant to previous discussions: > > - At one level this is normal, on another it implies somewhat a lack of > equality in the law, pointing to intimate association of Firms and State in > the US, relevant on contracting (particularly shrink wrap for eg) and > consumer liberty, vs corporate liberty as raised by Gurstein on this list > with the related Ralph Nader article. This is the ecology in which > Multistakeholderism will operate > no, it is not. > and consideration of how to balance public interest with corporate ones is > important. > - this points to the credibility/legitimacy/plausibility of the > internationalisation positions of Mueller as well McTim > no, it does not. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 31 10:48:41 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:48:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Worth Reading: May 31, 2013 In-Reply-To: <1113628985087.1102629592316.2033.9.9082503@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1113628985087.1102629592316.2033.9.9082503@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21F61D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> May be of interest; note "increasing restrictions on civil society." Lee ________________________________ From: Network of Democracy Research Institutes [ndri at ned.org] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:25 AM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: Worth Reading: May 31, 2013 [https://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs075/1102629592316/img/2.jpg] May 31, 2013 Dear Colleagues, This installment of Worth Reading features three efforts that survey key pillars of democracy across the globe: Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2013 and Freedom of the Press 2013 surveys, and the “State of Civil Society 2013” report from CIVICUS. Freedom in the World 2013 is the latest edition of Freedom House’s highly respected flagship report. This year, the report examines the state of political rights and civil liberties in 195 countries and territories, finding that “while the number of countries ranked as Free in 2012 was 90, a gain of 3 over the previous year, 27 countries showed significant declines, compared with 16 that showed notable gains.” This is the seventh year in a row in which the state of freedom in the world has declined, with tentative gains in the Middle East balanced out by authoritarian retrenchment in Eurasia; other worrying trends include increased violence within the Islamic world, repression in the Persian Gulf, and an increase in restrictions on civil society and foreign assistance. The full report includes individual country reports and more detailed data analysis. Freedom House also released Freedom of the Press 2013, an annual report finding that “the percentage of the world’s population living in societies with a fully free press has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade.” Analyzing 197 countries and territories, Freedom House found the press to be “Free” in only 32 percent of the countries examined, while 36 percent were “Partly Free” and the remaining 32 percent were rated “Not Free.” Noting the continued decline of press freedom, the report cites the ongoing European economic crisis, the difficult financial and operating challenges facing print media, organized extremist groups, and “increasingly sophisticated repression” as drivers of this negative trend. The full report offers more detailed analysis of regionial and data trends; individual country reports for the 197 countries surveyed will be posted online as they are completed. CIVICUS, a global network focusing on the health and growth of civil society worldwide, published “State of Civil Society 2013: Creating an Enabling Environment,” a report exploring the “inconsistency” between the widely-recognized “importance of civil society” and the growing number of initiatives aimed at undermining it. In this report, CIVICUS explores current global and regional trends in civil society promotion, examines what sort of legal framework can enable the growth of civil society, and expresses serious concerns about the ongoing backlash against civil society in authoritarian countries. In nearly every region, CIVICUS reports that activists are increasingly subject to murder, physical assault, harsh legislative measures, and legal harassment as they pursue their work. CIVICUS recommends that governments “engaged on the issue of human rights defenders” offer support through their embassies and other official channels and encourage civil society to pressure their governments to enact protections enabling activists to carry on their work with renewed vigor. Worth Reading is a list of featured readings on democracy disseminated semi-monthly by the International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy. Many thanks to Freedom House and CIVICUS for their efforts in compiling the surveys featured here. If you have materials you would like featured in Worth Reading, please send us an email at ndri at ned.org. With best wishes, Melissa Melissa Aten-Becnel International Forum for Democratic Studies National Endowment for Democracy 1025 F Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-378-9675 Email: melissaa at ned.org [Forum Twitter Follow Button] Forward email [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/SafeUnsubscribe_Footer_Logo_New.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/CC_Footer_Logo_New.png] This email was sent to lmcknigh at syr.edu by ndri at ned.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Network of Democracy Research Institutes | 1025 F Street NW | Suite 800 | Washington | DC | 20004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 31 13:24:45 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:24:45 +0100 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: I strongly support EFE's objection. So we can craft a letter for IGC endorsement. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On May 31, 2013 5:59 AM, "Kabani" wrote: > +1 > > On Friday, 31 May 2013, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> +1 >> Guru >> >> On 05/31/2013 01:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/30/2013 06:12 AM, Angela Daly wrote: >> >> I support EFF's objection. >> >> On 30 May 2013 19:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's >> objection through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net >> ) wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> FYI. (Source : >> >> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >> >>> >> >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >> >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >> >>> >> >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >> >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from >> the >> >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >> >>> block access to content for people across the globe. >> >>> >> >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard >> for >> >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that >> creates >> >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working >> group >> >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >> >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >> >>> vendors into the HTML standard. >> >>> >> >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >> >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >> >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser >> and >> >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >> >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are >> scared >> >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >> >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >> >>> >> >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out >> to >> >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >> > >> >> > > -- > Sent from iPad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu May 9 11:40:29 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 17:40:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mes excuses a tous. correction et lire comme suit: "Ce forum de 3 jours se déroulera vers les dernieres semaines du mois de Juillet. Les dates de l’évènement seront communiquées avant la fin du mois de mai 2013" Merci Bouba pour la remarque. My apologies to all. correction, and read as follows: "This 3-day forum will be held to the last week of July. The dates of the event will be announced before the end of May 2013 " Bouba thank you for the comment. Le 09/05/13, Baudouin SCHOMBE a écrit : > Bonjour a tous > > La République Démocratique du Congo organisera la 3 édition du forum sous > régional de l’Afrique Centrale en Juillet 2013. > > Ce forum de 3 jours se déroulera vers la fin du mois de septembre. Les > dates de l’évènement seront communiquées avant la fin du mois de mai. > > Juste avant le forum sous régional, la RDC organisera son forum national > sur la gouvernance de l’Internet. > > Le comité d’organisation de ces évènements est placé sous l’autorité du > Ministère des Postes, Télécommunications et Nouvelle Technologie de > l’Information et de la Communication (PTNTIC). > > > Hello everyone, > > The Democratic Republic of Congo will host third edition of IGF > sub-regional forum of Central Africa in July 2013. > > This 3-day forum will be held in late September. The dates of the event > will be announced before the end of May. > > Just before the sub-regional forum, the DRC will hold its National Forum > on Internet Governance. > > The organizing committee of the event is placed under the authority of the > Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and New Information Technology and > Communication > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > Le 7 mai 2013 13:01, a écrit : > >> Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to >> africs-ig at lists.apc.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 (Kossi Amessinou) >> 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> (Dora Sende (COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE >> L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:26:11 +0100 >> From: Kossi Amessinou >> To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org >> Subject: Re: [africs-ig] AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 >> Message-ID: >> < >> CAHOT-HX_5GbJxO0e8_bSKYn_cCF+F6C3Yq5yA4dqJRidnOD7Vw at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Bonsoir ? tous, >> Je heureux pour ce message confortable pour l'organisation du WAIGF >> 2013. Je suis en parfaite communion avec tous les coll?gues de l'IGF ? >> Abidjan. >> On reste en contact pour la suite! >> >> 2013/5/4, africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org >> > >: >> > Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to >> > africs-ig at lists.apc.org >> > >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org >> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at >> > africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org >> > >> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." >> > >> > >> > Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Mireille HOUNDJI) >> > 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Pierre Chekem) >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Message: 1 >> > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 10:41:48 +0000 (GMT) >> > From: Mireille HOUNDJI >> > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org >> > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci >> > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> > Message-ID: <437955127.268.1367577708904.JavaMail.root at igici.ci> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> > >> > >> > [English Version below] >> > >> > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> Gouvernance de >> > l?Internet (AfIGF) >> > >> > Chers Acteurs, >> > >> > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au >> > 5 >> > Juillet 2013. >> > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des >> > T?l?communications >> de >> > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet >> > en >> > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. >> Pour >> > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au >> service >> > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. >> > >> > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? >> > WAIGF >> > Abidjan 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance >> > (AfIGF) >> > >> > Dear Stakeholders, >> > >> > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet >> Governance >> > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. >> > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of >> C?te >> > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te >> d'Ivoire) >> > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the >> > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of >> > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" >> > >> > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan >> > WAIGF 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Project Manager IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 2 >> > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:38:35 +0100 (BST) >> > From: Pierre Chekem >> > To: AfriCS-IG >> > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci >> > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> > Message-ID: >> > <1367613515.50523.YahooMailClassic at web171604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> > Merci pour l'information. >> > >> > C'est une bonne nouvelle pour les acteurs du secteur en Afrique. >> > >> > Nous prions Nnenna d'informer les organisations de la Soci?t? civile >> > sur >> le >> > meilleur >> > moyen d'y contribuer. >> > >> > Bonne journ?e. >> > >> > Pierre Chekem >> > Partnership Coordo >> > tel(237) 77 77 99 62 >> > www.partnershipcameroon.org >> > >> > ============================================== >> > >> > --- On Fri, 3/5/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: >> > >> > From: Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org >> > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci >> > Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 13:41 >> > >> > >> > [English Version below] >> > >> > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> Gouvernance de >> > l?Internet (AfIGF) >> > >> > Chers Acteurs, >> > >> > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au >> > 5 >> > Juillet 2013. >> > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des >> > T?l?communications >> de >> > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet >> > en >> > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. >> Pour >> > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au >> service >> > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. >> > >> > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? >> > WAIGF >> > Abidjan 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance >> > (AfIGF) >> > >> > Dear Stakeholders, >> > >> > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet >> Governance >> > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. >> > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of >> C?te >> > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te >> d'Ivoire) >> > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the >> > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of >> > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" >> > >> > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan >> > WAIGF 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Project Manager IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AfriCS-IG mailing list >> > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> > -------------- next part -------------- >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > URL: >> > < >> http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130503/1d1e523a/attachment-0001.html >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AfriCS-IG mailing list >> > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> > >> > >> > End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 >> > *************************************** >> > >> >> >> -- >> AMESSINOU Kossi >> Ing?nieur des TIC >> ICT Engineer >> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >> skype: amessinou >> @amessinou @bigf >> Que Dieu vous b?nisse >> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui ?tait et qui vient, pour la >> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 03:56:01 +0100 (BST) >> From: "Dora Sende \(COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE >> L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT" >> To: AfriCS-IG >> Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> Message-ID: >> <1367895361.80719.YahooMailClassic at web171803.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Bonjour tous,Merci pour cette importante information qui permet aux >> autres >> pays de s'inspirer pour l'organisation de leur forum. Cependant Mireille, >> donne nous toutes les informations possible permettant aux acteurs des >> autres pays d'y assister, toutes les formalit?s possible ? faire. >> >> >> COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION >> DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT (COFEPRE) >> 159,IMPASSE DES AVOCATS,RUE 172 >> POBOX 462 >> DOUALA/CAMEROUN >> TEL FIXE 23733426381/33161920 >> MOBILE 23799929240 >> E-mail : cofepre at yahoo.fr >> www.facebook.com/COFEPRE >> DORA SENDE >> PRESIDENTE >> ASSOCIATIVEMENT VOTRE >> >> >> >> --- En date de?: Lun 6.5.13, Mawaki Chango a ?crit?: >> >> De: Mawaki Chango >> Objet: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan >> ?: "AfriCS-IG" >> Date: Lundi 6 mai 2013, 12h07 >> >> Mireille, >> >> Merci pour l'information. Priere de nous tenir inform?s ? mesure ques >> les pr?paratifs avancent, en particulier sur les mesure en place pour >> la participation des pays de la sous r?gion. >> >> Cordialement, >> >> Mawaki >> >> On 5/3/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: >> > >> > [English Version below] >> > >> > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> Gouvernance de >> > l?Internet (AfIGF) >> > >> > Chers Acteurs, >> > >> > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la >> > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au >> > 5 >> > Juillet 2013. >> > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des >> > T?l?communications >> de >> > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet >> > en >> > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. >> Pour >> > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au >> service >> > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. >> > >> > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? >> > WAIGF >> > Abidjan 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance >> > (AfIGF) >> > >> > Dear Stakeholders, >> > >> > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet >> Governance >> > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. >> > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of >> C?te >> > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te >> d'Ivoire) >> > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the >> > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of >> > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" >> > >> > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan >> > WAIGF 2013. >> > >> > Mireille HOUNDJI >> > Project Manager IGICI >> > http://www.igici.ci >> > (00225) 20344742 >> > (00225) 06053931 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AfriCS-IG mailing list >> > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> AfriCS-IG mailing list >> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130507/635ae941/attachment-0001.html >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfriCS-IG mailing list >> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> >> >> End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 >> *************************************** >> > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri May 10 04:32:37 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:32:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Afralo-dakar-event] [aacentrale] Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <1368146537.32536.YahooMailNeo@web172302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1368146537.32536.YahooMailNeo@web172302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bonjour Delphine, merci pour ta contribution et surtout de cette alerte pertinente. Au niveau de la RDC, la confirmation officielle se fera par le Ministre des Postes, Telecoms et NTIC (PTNTIC) de la RDC. La lettre a été déjà minuté et se trouve dans son signataire pour les urgences. Le comité d'organisation de ce forum est piloté par le cabinet du Ministère PTNTIC de la RDC. la première réunion d'information avec tous les acteurs se tiendra la semaine prochaine. Je suis membre de ce comité et suis aussi chargé de la liaison permanente avec le secrétariat de l'IGF Afrique centrale. Toutes les réunions y compris celle de la semaine prochaine sera sanctionnée par un compte rendu que j'enverrai immédiatement au secrétariat IGF pour ensuite dispatcher sur les mailing listes. Nous allons laisser une latitude technique au secrétariat pour les informations a mettre sur le site du FGI-AC. Nous sommes une équipe depuis trois ans et la RDC a l'obligation de faire honneur au Cameroun et a toute l’Afrique centrale. Les IGF de Brazaville et du Cameroun serviront d’expérience. Je vous teindrai informer régulièrement et surtout n’hésitez pas a me faire des observations, des remarques et même des interpellations. Merci encore Delphine, tu es toujours importante. amitiés SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net Le 10 mai 2013 02:42, NANA Delphine a écrit : > Bonjour Bouba, Pierre Lotis et tous, > > C'est à présent que je decouvre l'information ci-dessous relative à > l'organisation > IGF-AC en RDC. Il est vrai que nous attendions cette information depuis un > certain temps, d'après nos échanges. > > Ceci étant, quelles sont les dispositions prises au niveau du Cameroun qui > abrite le secrétariat en ce moment ? Tels que les délais sont perçus, je > pense qu'il ya urgence. > > Cordialement > > *Mme Delphine NANA MEKOUNTE* > > - *Directrice Générale du CEFEPROD, (Centre Féminin pour la Promotion > du Développement) Organisation dotée du Statut Consultatif Spécial > auprès du Conseil Économique et Social des Nations Unies (ECOSOC) * > - * **Site web : **www.cefeprod.org* * * > - *Membre du Conseil d'Administration de l'Agence Nationale sur les > TIC ( ANTIC) > * > - *Présidente COSCIS (Consortium de la Société Civile pour le Suivi de > la Mise en Œuvre des Résultats du Sommet Mondial sur la Société de > l'Information (SMSI)* > - *Membre du Secrétariat sur le Gouvernance de l'Internet en Afrique > Centrale > * > - *Experte Consultante en Développement organisationnel, Genre et > Développement et TIC pour le Développement*** > - *BP 8376. Tél ( +237) 22 18 09 58/ 99 99 86 16* > - *Email : **delynana2002 at yahoo.fr* ** > - *YAOUNDE-CAMEROUN*** > > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Baudouin SCHOMBE > > *À :* AfriCS-IG ; gouvintrdc < > gouvintrdc at yahoogroupes.fr>; igf-afrique-centrale < > igf-afrique-centrale at googlegroups.com>; igfn ; " > afralo-dakar-event at atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > afralo-dakar-event at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; africann < > africann at afrinic.net>; Discussion List on Internet Governance < > AfIGF at dgroups.org>; "aacentrale at yahoogroupes.fr" < > aacentrale at yahoogroupes.fr>; Réseau des Télecentres Communautaires du > Congo ; rtccfacilitation < > rtccfacilitation at googlegroups.com>; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 9 mai 2013 12h50 > *Objet :* [aacentrale] Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 > > > Bonjour a tous > La République Démocratique du Congo organisera la 3 édition du forum sous > régional de l’Afrique Centrale en Juillet 2013. > Ce forum de 3 jours se déroulera vers la fin du mois de septembre. Les > dates de l’évènement seront communiquées avant la fin du mois de mai. > Juste avant le forum sous régional, la RDC organisera son forum national > sur la gouvernance de l’Internet. > Le comité d’organisation de ces évènements est placé sous l’autorité du > Ministère des Postes, Télécommunications et Nouvelle Technologie de > l’Information et de la Communication (PTNTIC). > > Hello everyone, > The Democratic Republic of Congo will host third edition of IGF > sub-regional forum of Central Africa in July 2013. > This 3-day forum will be held in late September. The dates of the event > will be announced before the end of May. > Just before the sub-regional forum, the DRC will hold its National Forum > on Internet Governance. > The organizing committee of the event is placed under the authority of > the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and New Information Technology > and Communication > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > Le 7 mai 2013 13:01, a écrit : > > Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to > africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 (Kossi Amessinou) > 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > (Dora Sende (COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE > L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:26:11 +0100 > From: Kossi Amessinou > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 > Message-ID: > < > CAHOT-HX_5GbJxO0e8_bSKYn_cCF+F6C3Yq5yA4dqJRidnOD7Vw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Bonsoir ? tous, > Je heureux pour ce message confortable pour l'organisation du WAIGF > 2013. Je suis en parfaite communion avec tous les coll?gues de l'IGF ? > Abidjan. > On reste en contact pour la suite! > > 2013/5/4, africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org >: > > Send AfriCS-IG mailing list submissions to > > africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > africs-ig-request at lists.apc.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > africs-ig-owner at lists.apc.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of AfriCS-IG digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Mireille HOUNDJI) > > 2. Re: Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan (Pierre Chekem) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 10:41:48 +0000 (GMT) > > From: Mireille HOUNDJI > > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > Message-ID: <437955127.268.1367577708904.JavaMail.root at igici.ci> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:38:35 +0100 (BST) > > From: Pierre Chekem > > To: AfriCS-IG > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > Message-ID: > > <1367613515.50523.YahooMailClassic at web171604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Merci pour l'information. > > > > C'est une bonne nouvelle pour les acteurs du secteur en Afrique. > > > > Nous prions Nnenna d'informer les organisations de la Soci?t? civile sur > le > > meilleur > > moyen d'y contribuer. > > > > Bonne journ?e. > > > > Pierre Chekem > > Partnership Coordo > > tel(237) 77 77 99 62 > > www.partnershipcameroon.org > > > > ============================================== > > > > --- On Fri, 3/5/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: > > > > From: Mireille HOUNDJI > > Subject: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > > To: africs-ig at lists.apc.org > > Cc: nnenna at nnenna.org, djekou at atci.ci > > Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 13:41 > > > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > < > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130503/1d1e523a/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > > > > End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 3 > > *************************************** > > > > > -- > AMESSINOU Kossi > Ing?nieur des TIC > ICT Engineer > Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 > skype: amessinou > @amessinou @bigf > Que Dieu vous b?nisse > Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui ?tait et qui vient, pour la > gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 03:56:01 +0100 (BST) > From: "Dora Sende \(COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION DE > L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT" > To: AfriCS-IG > Subject: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > Message-ID: > <1367895361.80719.YahooMailClassic at web171803.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Bonjour tous,Merci pour cette importante information qui permet aux autres > pays de s'inspirer pour l'organisation de leur forum. Cependant Mireille, > donne nous toutes les informations possible permettant aux acteurs des > autres pays d'y assister, toutes les formalit?s possible ? faire. > > > COLLECTIF DES FEMMES POUR LA PROTECTION > DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ENFANT (COFEPRE) > 159,IMPASSE DES AVOCATS,RUE 172 > POBOX 462 > DOUALA/CAMEROUN > TEL FIXE 23733426381/33161920 > MOBILE 23799929240 > E-mail : cofepre at yahoo.fr > www.facebook.com/COFEPRE > DORA SENDE > PRESIDENTE > ASSOCIATIVEMENT VOTRE > > > > --- En date de?: Lun 6.5.13, Mawaki Chango a ?crit?: > > De: Mawaki Chango > Objet: Re: [africs-ig] Fwd: West Africa IGF 2013 in Abidjan > ?: "AfriCS-IG" > Date: Lundi 6 mai 2013, 12h07 > > Mireille, > > Merci pour l'information. Priere de nous tenir inform?s ? mesure ques > les pr?paratifs avancent, en particulier sur les mesure en place pour > la participation des pays de la sous r?gion. > > Cordialement, > > Mawaki > > On 5/3/13, Mireille HOUNDJI wrote: > > > > [English Version below] > > > > La C?te d?Ivoire abritera le 6?me Forum Ouest Africain sur la > Gouvernance de > > l?Internet (AfIGF) > > > > Chers Acteurs, > > > > J?ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le 6? Forum Ouest Africain sur la > > Gouvernance de l?Internet se tiendra ? Abidjan en C?te d?Ivoire du 3 au 5 > > Juillet 2013. > > La rencontre sera co-organis?e par l?ATCI (Agence des T?l?communications > de > > C?te d?Ivoire) et IGICI (Initiatives pour la Gouvernance de l?Internet en > > C?te d?Ivoire) en partenariat avec la communaut? locale de l'Internet. > Pour > > cette ?dition, le th?me retenu est : ? Gouvernance de l?Internet au > service > > de la paix : Une responsabilit? partag?e des parties prenantes ?. > > > > Chers Acteurs de l'Internet, vous ?tes tous convi?s ? participer ? WAIGF > > Abidjan 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Coordonnatrice des Projets IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > C?te d'Ivoire to host the 6th West African Forum on Internet Governance > > (AfIGF) > > > > Dear Stakeholders, > > > > I am pleased to announce that the 6th West Africa Forum Internet > Governance > > (WAIGF) will be held in Abidjan, C?te d'Ivoire from 3 to 5 July 2013. > > The meeting will be co-organized by ATCI (Telecommunications Agency of > C?te > > d'Ivoire) and IGICI (Initiatives for Internet Governance in C?te > d'Ivoire) > > in partnership with the Internet local community. For this edition, the > > theme is: "Internet Governance For Peace: A Shared Responsibility of > > Multi-stakeholder partnerships" > > > > Dear Internet Stakeholders, you are all invited to take part in Abidjan > > WAIGF 2013. > > > > Mireille HOUNDJI > > Project Manager IGICI > > http://www.igici.ci > > (00225) 20344742 > > (00225) 06053931 > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/private/africs-ig/attachments/20130507/635ae941/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > End of AfriCS-IG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 > *************************************** > > > __._,_.___ > Répondre à expéditeur| Répondre > à groupe| Répondre > en mode Web| Nouvelle > discussion > Toute la discussion( > 1) > Activités récentes: > Aller sur votre groupe > [image: Yahoo! Groupes] > Passer à : Texte seulement, > Résumé du jour• > Désinscription• Conditions > d’utilisation > . > > __,_._,___ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Afralo-dakar-event mailing list > Afralo-dakar-event at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afralo-dakar-event > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t